On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:17:26 -0400 Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote:
> In those two examples at least, we provided more than ample opportunity > to participate. We also have an agreed to Decision Policy, and a > mechanism to report bugs against same. Which isn't to say that there is consensus, of course. But, equally of course, the W3C process doesn't require either actual or de facto consensus to move forward. HTML is incredibly important and has many aspects which are subject to *reasonable*, but fundamental, disagreement or irreconcilable fundamental interests. It's no surprise that there would not be consensus, or even grudging consensus, on quite a bit of it. The W3C aims at consensus, but to aim is not necessarily to hit. The WHATWG doesn't aim at consensus, but often achieves it (over key constituencies for various points). Any organization will have both structural and incidental defects. At the moment, despite the considerable pain both organizations bring to various people (including, I warrant, the chairs), they both seem to be contributing to the overall effort. It's not harmonious, but progress is, in this instance, more important than harmony. (Not that I would oppose more harmony, by any means!) Cheers, Bijan.
