confidentiality in W3C WGs

[Lisa Rein]

I respectfully decline from carrying on what is deteriorating into silly
thread of layered misassumptions by people that just like to argue, I
guess.

I just don't have the time to commit to reading all of it and answering
all of it, any longer.  

Many apologies.

thanks,

lisa

Oren Ben-Kiki wrote:
> 
> Lisa Rein <lisarein at finetuning.com> wrote:
> > It has been my experience that both:
> >
> > 1) They put it in the spec if they think of it.
> >
> > 2) Someone in the group will tell you if you ask them...
> >
> > 3)I guess my biggest problem with all these complaints about the process
> [and lack of rationale]
> > is that I, personally, have NEVER had a problem finding out the
> > technical nature of anything occurring in a W3C spec. Period...
> >
> > ... Now, sometimes I don't agree with the rationale, but I don't argue
> about
> > it.  If I wanted to argue about it THAT's when you go to the public
> > discussion list and take it from there (and not THIS public discussion
> > list, please!  This isn't the "my beefs with every W3C spec" list, is
> > it?  Sometimes I wonder!)
> 
> It seems as though you seriously suggest that the lack of documentation of
> the technical process of creating the spec (specifically, the issues, the
> alternatives, and the rationale for the adopted solutions) is "OK" since one
> can simple E-mail some WG member and ask him to explain it for you. After
> all, it works so well for you!
> 
> Please say this is a misreading of your post?
> 
> At any rate, I don't have the E-mail addresses of the XHTML WG members. I
> can't officially get these addresses AFAIK. Even if I could, it would not be
> practical for them to answer my questions - because they'd be swamped with
> the questions of every other interested reader of the draft. Even if they
> did somehow manage convey the rationale to all people writing to them, and I
> wouldn't agree with the rationale for some specific decision, I could not go
> to "another" discussion list - because there typically isn't one, or if
> there is it is as full of complaints about the W3C process as this one is.
> 
> And yes, this mailing list _is_ about "my beefs with every (XML related) W3C
> spec", between other XML related things, unless someone creates a more
> appropriate list for the purpose. If you are aware of one, I'd appreciate
> the address.
> 
> The more this thread continues, the more I'm getting convinced there's
> something wrong with the W3C. Obviously there is a reason why proper process
> documentation is not being provided. The problem is that the simplest reason
> is "to hide any shady politics between member companies". Another reason is
> "because it would harm the quality of the resulting recommendation" -
> obviously absurd, or maybe "it would slow things down too much" which people
> in this mailing list are simply not buying, because being able to understand
> a recommendation is more important then having it a few months early. Of
> course the W3C does not give a reason for why no reasons are given for why
> ... and so on. Maybe they are afraid that giving reasons is habit forming
> :-)
> 
> Share & Enjoy,
> 
>     Oren Ben-Kiki
> 
> 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)

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)