xml-dev - Re: standards body parallel

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

At 10:46 PM 10/13/00 +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 03:39:23PM -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>> For the only public acknowledgment I've seen of such pressure, try:
>> http://www.xml.com/axml/notes/JeanPa.html
>
>  Editor appointment is not a vote, it was the responsability of the
>chair (Jon Bosak in this case) to handle the objection. The chair had
>to handle a case where someone objects to an editor suggestion. In the
>end a compromise was found, but strictly speaking it's not about the
>decision of the content of the specification, nor it's accession to
>REC status. I think it was purely a PR issue as Tim seems to indicate.
>Editors don't have power over the content of the specification, though
>in practice if you are the one editing a document it is usually easier
>to suggest modifications to the Working Group.

I'm afraid that the episode doesn't lend any confidence to the W3C's claims
that large vendors have no extra influence, at the very least.

>> For those of us not at the table, a vote is not a vote.
>
>  That's another issue. We have invited expert status for those who can
>contribute significantly while not part of a member organization.

If I come into the W3C in the future, it'll be through the front door, not
via Invited Expert status, and I'll be occupying the Advisory Committee seat.

I strongly suggest that the W3C take a close look at its own process and
stop offering Invited Expert status as an _alternative_ to opening its own
process.

It's not an adequate answer, to put it bluntly.  There's no accountability
right now.  Results, yes.  Accountability?  Only to members.

>> While I would love
>> to take your statements at face value, there is no way to verify such
>> claims without opening the archives.  My understanding is that a vote is a
>> vote is a vote, except in certain rare situations.  
>
>  And the example you provided is not one subject to vote.

Unfortunately W3C confidentiality rules thoroughly prevent public
discussion of other discussions and leave me without citable sources.  I
presented the example above because it was publicly posted.  

Votes are supposed to be a last resort in a consensus-based organization
anyway, are they not?  In any event, I can't verify your claim against the
archives.  One of the few things Ronald Reagan ever said that I liked was
'Trust but verify.'  I can't verify, so why should I trust?

>> exactly Len Bullard is saying.  I think you may be deeply irritated that
>> I'm questioning your views, but I'm hardly attempting to minimize them.
>
>  Okay, you have been carrying a message saying more or less that
>centralized design done at W3C where not everybody is invited to the
>discussion is not a good model. And also suggesting, but in relatively
>vague terms that a completely decentralized open design would be a 
>better choice for XML standards ...

I don't believe I've argued for a completely decentralized model.  For open
design, I'll certainly plead guilty.

It's unfortunately difficult to compete with W3C at this point, though
there certainly are cases - JDOM - where people are trying hard, and others
working in niches - SAX, Common XML, Schemas (way back when), Protocols
(way back when) where the W3C hasn't shown up.  

I would like to see more open competition with the W3C, if not necessarily
a decentralized approach.  I'd love to see the W3C _welcome_ competition,
and maybe even consider a 'blessing' approach rather than a 'created here'
approach.

>  You promoted the SAX example as one of the case where this succeeded.
>I would say that personally I have troubles with SAX in the sense that
>nobody took the time to see how it should be done in pure C, though one
>of the most successful XML implementation expat uses one close to it but
>there is no "official" mapping for C. So for me at least this example 
>is not perfect. Nobody in this decentralized open assembly decided it
>was worth its time doing it for C, and I think that's the crucial problem.

If the DOM provided C bindings, or even C++, I might feel more sympathetic
to this as an argument for the W3C.  Since it doesn't, I won't.

>  And I think that for pure specifications the problem is even more
>difficult. Other factors are scaling, and resolution of conflicts. Both
>are easier when there is some kind of control over the resources used 
>to attain the goal.

I think you can at least recognize that your view may not be shared by
others outside of the process you enjoy.

>  Last but not least, I do understand how a non-open process may
>frustrate people not invited to join. However at W3C it is possible
>to get involved through the Invited Expert status. If someone want and
>it's clear that you can provide valuable input, ask the chairs to join.
>But you will have to agree to the WG rules including the fact that
>a minimum garanteed effort has to be provided by the group member
>(and is applied indifferently to invited experts and people who
>joined from W3C members).

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign.  Invited Expert status provides a nice way
to avoid pressure building on the W3C to open up, and to take advantage of
developers' time, but I don't think this approach really changes the
landscape.

The existence of back doors doesn't add any accountability to the process.

>  IMHO suggesting to get everything open and risking anybody to block
>the process by criticizing without contributing is actually the worse
>model. Even in projects like Gnome not everybody can commit to the CVS
>database. And not everybody with CVS write access is entitled to change
>someone else code without notice. At the end who does the code get the
>final word,

I'm not even asking for everyone to be able to participate, though I
wouldn't object to that.  At minimum, I'm asking for accountability: public
archives, public votes, public discussions.  Some WGs seem to be headed
that direction already anyway.

Writing code is, as always, an excellent way to get the final word.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books