On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Glenn Adams <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Ian Hickson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: >> > >> > ok, but i can't help but hearing an US vs THEM theme here; i certainly >> > don't have the perception that the WHATWG is operating as a W3C entity >> > or within W3C process >> >> There's definitely an "us" vs "them" here. There's the people doing the >> work, and the people copying the work. Whether it's a WG copying a CG or >> the W3C copying the WHATWG or even one editor in a WG copying the work of >> another editor in the same WG, if it's done without the involvment of the >> person doing the work, it's both introducing massive confusion to the >> market (with multiple conflicting drafts that all claim to define the same >> thing, resulting in lower interop because implementors don't know which to >> follow), and it's just plain wrong (plagiarism). That anyone would do this >> on a professional basis, or defend it once it happens, let alone that an >> entire institution would support this, I find absolutly shocking. >> > > From my view, it is a matter of misunderstanding of an ostensibly > cooperative process that, if there are issues about attribution, should be > worked out between the stakeholders on an amicable basis, and not by making > claims of plagiarism. > BTW, the notion of plagiarism implies that the perpetrator is intending to conceal the source. I think that is absolutely not the case here. Your position appears to be excessively cynical, and effectively attributes bad faith to the WebApps editors trying to move the process forward.
