confidentiality in W3C WGs

[Len Bullard]

Lauren Wood wrote:

> I agree that technical reasons for why the spec is the way it is, and
> reasons for change, should be made public. Particularly when the
> issue is controversial, as this one is.

Right.  Do it the OldeFashionedWay:  Document by paragraph number the 
text, the suggested edit to the text, the rationale for the technical 
change, the submittor. the reason for accepting or rejecting the 
change.  There are some sage standards editors on this 
list (Dr. Goldfarb? Dr. Newcomb?) who can provide a precise format 
for this kind of document.

It really is that easy.  We can't fix the W3C.  We can't fix the 
press.  We can go our own way.... or we can state in earnest to 
whatever authority can provide support that the need for clearly 
documented public rationale for public utilities outweighs the 
need for confidentiality.

Editing such documents before publishing them is good practice.  
Publishing blow by blow summaries of meeting debates is bad practice.
There is plenty of experience in this community to explain those
practices.

len


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)