/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2009-07-06 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Mon Jul 06 00:00:00 2009
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:00] * Quits: tobyx (tobyx@87.159.131.237) (Quit: tobyx)
  4. # [01:07] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246) (Ping timeout)
  5. # [01:13] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246)
  6. # [01:44] <Lachy> I'd rather not have the summary issue go down to a vote. I'd rather the chairs simply admit that the data currently available doesn't support the inclusion of the attribute, close the issue and move on.
  7. # [01:45] <Lachy> then, if and only if new data emerges that shows the issue should be reconsidered, preferably from scientific studies, should the issue be reopened
  8. # [02:14] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@99.226.207.11) (Ping timeout)
  9. # [02:15] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@99.226.207.11)
  10. # [02:17] * Quits: maddiin (mc@87.185.219.253) (Quit: maddiin)
  11. # [03:13] * Joins: heycam_ (cam@130.194.72.84)
  12. # [03:17] * Quits: laplink (link@193.157.66.135) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  13. # [03:26] * Quits: heycam (cam@124.168.95.60) (Client exited)
  14. # [03:26] * heycam_ is now known as heycam
  15. # [05:07] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  16. # [05:15] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: Elaborate on how to describe a table. (whatwg r3356) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Jul/0019.html>
  17. # [05:45] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: and a crossref for summary='' (whatwg r3357) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Jul/0020.html>
  18. # [07:22] * Joins: maddiin (mc@87.185.216.102)
  19. # [08:15] * Quits: Yudai (Yudai@59.146.156.123) (Ping timeout)
  20. # [08:25] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.)
  21. # [08:28] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  22. # [08:51] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@83.252.197.137)
  23. # [09:41] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@83.252.197.137) (Quit: gsnedders)
  24. # [10:14] * Quits: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84) (Ping timeout)
  25. # [10:18] * Quits: webben_ (benh@217.12.15.52) (Ping timeout)
  26. # [10:18] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.)
  27. # [10:43] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  28. # [10:50] * Joins: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167)
  29. # [10:55] * Joins: heycam (cam@124.168.95.60)
  30. # [10:58] * Joins: tobyx (tobyx@85.183.48.8)
  31. # [11:16] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7076] Client-side image maps attributes missing on the a element <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Jul/0021.html>
  32. # [11:35] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  33. # [11:42] <pimpbot> planet: <div>An Unnofficial Q&amp;A about the Discontinuation of the XHTML2 WG</div> <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/xhtml2-html5-q-and-a/>
  34. # [11:45] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.)
  35. # [12:03] * Joins: myakura (myakura@122.16.139.201)
  36. # [12:04] * Quits: tobyx (tobyx@85.183.48.8) (Quit: tobyx)
  37. # [12:18] * Joins: tobyx (tobyx@85.183.48.8)
  38. # [12:23] * Joins: laplink (link@193.157.66.116)
  39. # [12:46] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: Allow other ways of including table descriptions. (whatwg r3358) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Jul/0021.html>
  40. # [14:05] * Quits: tobyx (tobyx@85.183.48.8) (Quit: tobyx)
  41. # [14:21] * Joins: Yudai (Yudai@59.146.156.123)
  42. # [15:01] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  43. # [15:25] * Quits: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
  44. # [15:34] * Joins: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167)
  45. # [15:35] * Joins: aroben (aroben@71.58.77.15)
  46. # [15:37] * Quits: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
  47. # [15:43] <pimpbot> planet: <div>HTML 5 tag vs Flash video. What are the pros and cons?</div> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1086886/html-5-video-tag-vs-flash-video-what-are-the-pros-and-cons>
  48. # [16:02] * Joins: webben (benh@217.12.14.240)
  49. # [16:19] * Quits: webben (benh@217.12.14.240) (Ping timeout)
  50. # [16:22] * Joins: webben (benh@217.12.14.241)
  51. # [16:35] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  52. # [16:40] * Joins: billmason (bmason@69.30.57.143)
  53. # [17:06] * Joins: Julian_ (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  54. # [17:07] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233) (Connection reset by peer)
  55. # [17:07] * Julian_ is now known as Julian
  56. # [17:09] * Joins: webben_ (benh@217.12.14.240)
  57. # [17:11] * Quits: webben (benh@217.12.14.241) (Ping timeout)
  58. # [17:23] * Quits: webben_ (benh@217.12.14.240) (Quit: leaving)
  59. # [17:23] * Joins: webben (benh@217.12.14.240)
  60. # [17:35] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233) (Ping timeout)
  61. # [17:36] * Quits: myakura (myakura@122.16.139.201) (Quit: Leaving...)
  62. # [17:37] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  63. # [18:57] * Joins: adele (adele@17.246.19.254)
  64. # [18:58] * Quits: adele (adele@17.246.19.254) (Quit: adele)
  65. # [19:01] * Joins: adele (adele@17.246.19.254)
  66. # [19:01] * Parts: adele (adele@17.246.19.254)
  67. # [19:15] * Quits: aroben (aroben@71.58.77.15) (Connection reset by peer)
  68. # [19:15] * Joins: aroben (aroben@71.58.77.15)
  69. # [19:22] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@83.252.196.10)
  70. # [19:44] <pimpbot> planet: <div>An Unofficial Q&amp;A about the Discontinuation of the XHTML2 WG</div> <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/xhtml2-html5-q-and-a/>
  71. # [20:10] * Quits: hober (ted@206.212.254.2) (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
  72. # [20:11] * Joins: hober (ted@206.212.254.2)
  73. # [20:28] * Quits: webben (benh@217.12.14.240) (Ping timeout)
  74. # [20:44] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Ping timeout)
  75. # [20:51] * Quits: shepazu (schepers@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Core Breach)
  76. # [20:53] * Quits: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.85) (Ping timeout)
  77. # [20:59] * Joins: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.103)
  78. # [21:05] * Joins: shepazu (schepers@128.30.52.30)
  79. # [21:21] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.240)
  80. # [21:44] * Joins: tobyx (tobyx@87.159.131.146)
  81. # [22:27] <Lachy> I really wish the chairs would stop letting baseless arguments that clearly and undoubtedly contradict all known evidence, and which are grounded in nothing more than proponents own biases, get in the way of simply moving forward with technically superior solutions, in favour of chasing design-by-committee "consensus" nonsense
  82. # [22:27] * Lachy is frustrated.
  83. # [22:31] * Joins: aroben_ (aroben@71.58.77.15)
  84. # [22:31] * Quits: aroben (aroben@71.58.77.15) (Connection reset by peer)
  85. # [22:45] <shepazu> Lachy: don't be so hard on Hixie, he's doing his best to write a good spec, he can't help his bias
  86. # [22:48] <jgraham> Lachy: The price you pay for W3C endoresement and the patent policy and everything is a process that has "design by committee" at its very core
  87. # [22:49] <jgraham> That's what "consensus" means
  88. # [22:50] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  89. # [22:50] <jgraham> (it can be mitigated by some sort of pre-agreement to let one person take most of the initial design decisions but for anything controversial W3C process mandates design by committee)
  90. # [22:51] * Quits: laplink (link@193.157.66.116) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  91. # [22:51] <jgraham> (comments on the effect this has on the average quality of W3C specs is left as an exercise to the reader)
  92. # [22:57] <Lachy> shepazu, I hope that's sarcasm. In this case, I'm accusing the proponents for the inclusion of summary of being bias based on their clear refusal to accept any evidence that contradicts their pre-conceived notions
  93. # [23:00] <shepazu> Lachy: and I'm hoping "design-by-committee "consensus" nonsense" is sarcasm... if it's not, why are you in the W3C HTML WG?
  94. # [23:01] <Lachy> because working with the W3C was necessary for the patent policy
  95. # [23:01] <shepazu> and consensus isn't "design by committe", that's just pejorative jingoism
  96. # [23:02] <shepazu> Lachy: W3C is not a buffet, you don't get to avoid your veggies
  97. # [23:02] <Lachy> no, concensus doesn't have to be design by committee. But in this case, taking a vote on a purley technical issue that should instead be decided based on evidence, is.
  98. # [23:03] <shepazu> then stop claiming that they are equivalent
  99. # [23:03] <shepazu> I used your words, not mine
  100. # [23:03] <shepazu> and not W3C's
  101. # [23:03] <Lachy> I didn't. I claimed that the chairs are going to be using a design by committee approach to acheive consensus
  102. # [23:03] <jgraham> shepazu: How is it not? That's practically the definition of "design by committee" in the literal sense
  103. # [23:05] <shepazu> jgraham: consensus is a process to bring everyone to compatible conclusions and support, it doesn't demand that every option of voice be completely satisfied
  104. # [23:05] <shepazu> s/option of voice/option or voice/
  105. # [23:06] <jgraham> shepazu: Neither does design by committee. Design by committee is a process by which a large number of disparate entities come together and design something that is mutually acceptable to all.
  106. # [23:07] <shepazu> jgraham: that's the denotation, not the connotation
  107. # [23:07] <jgraham> shepazu: The connotation arises from the observed effects of this kind of process
  108. # [23:08] <shepazu> I think in the context of the word "nonsense", it's pretty clear that Lachy was pouring derision upon the idea of people working together to achieve a mutual goal
  109. # [23:08] <Lachy> I called this instance design by committee because if, as a result of the vote, summary does get included in the spec, then it will only be to appease the egos of a few vocal members, in spite of technical reasoning
  110. # [23:08] <shepazu> so, you can quibble all you like about the words, but the meaning was clear
  111. # [23:09] <jgraham> shepazu: I am not necessarily agreeing with Lachy
  112. # [23:09] <Lachy> I used nonsense to refer to the concept of using a design-by-committee approach to achive consensus, rather than other techniques
  113. # [23:09] <Lachy> in other words, using design-by-committee is not the right way to achieve consensus
  114. # [23:09] <shepazu> jgraham: ^^ you see that Lachy is using "design-by-committee" in its most pejorative sense
  115. # [23:10] <shepazu> so, that's the operative sense I was kvetching about
  116. # [23:10] <Lachy> I don't see any other way to use it. There is nothing positive about it.
  117. # [23:10] <Lachy> "Design by committee is a term referring to a style of design and its resultant output when a group of entities comes together to produce something (often the design of technological systems or standards), particularly in the presence of poor and incompetent leadership. The defining characteristics of "design by committee" are needless complexity, internal inconsistency, logical flaws, banality, and the lack of a unifying vision." -- Wikipedia
  118. # [23:11] * jgraham notes that the wikipedia page on this topic is quite poor
  119. # [23:11] <Lachy> do you have a better reference?
  120. # [23:12] <jgraham> Lachy: No but the wikipedia page has e.g. uncited criticism of Airbus which seems out of place and not npov
  121. # [23:13] <shepazu> jgraham: if that's the sense that people are using it in, then it's a bit silly to argue that it has another meaning that's less pejorative...
  122. # [23:13] <shepazu> I'm not denying that you're right, I'm denying that it's relevant
  123. # [23:14] <shepazu> the word "bitch" also means a female dog, but I almost never hear it used that way
  124. # [23:15] * gsnedders heard a teacher once use it in that sense in an argument on a school trip, and everyone (including the other teachers around) burst out laughing
  125. # [23:15] <gsnedders> (But I think the context was something like, "Yes, but the bitch can do that."
  126. # [23:15] <jgraham> shepazu: I'm saying that the W3C process is literally a design by committee process and so it likely shows some of the negative (and positive) traits associated with this porcess
  127. # [23:15] <Lachy> I suspect the airbus thing is probably someones poor attempt at criticising the company
  128. # [23:16] * Joins: laplink (link@193.157.66.116)
  129. # [23:16] <jgraham> (obviously this is not a novel statement e.g. http://www.w3.org/People/Bos/DesignGuide/committee.html)
  130. # [23:16] <pimpbot> Title: Design by committee (An essay on W3C's design principles) (at www.w3.org)
  131. # [23:17] <Lachy> I removed it
  132. # [23:17] <shepazu> jgraham: okay, but that derails the conversation into meta-discussion... which, frankly, I don't have time for
  133. # [23:17] <jgraham> shepazu: Oh, I thought the whole conversation was aleady meta-discussion
  134. # [23:17] <shepazu> jgraham: you were wrong
  135. # [23:19] <shepazu> I'm a W3C Team member, and part of my job is to ensure that the process is followed, and when I hear someone say they don't want to work toward consensus, it's my job to tell them that that is one of the groundrules for working in W3C
  136. # [23:20] <jgraham> shepazu: I think what Lachy wants and what happens re two strictly unrelated things
  137. # [23:20] <Lachy> shepazu, just to be clear, I didn't object to the idea of working toward consensus in this case. Just the process through which it seems we will be achieving it
  138. # [23:20] <jgraham> *are
  139. # [23:21] <shepazu> jgraham: actually, I think that consensus has been roundly ignored in the design of HTML5, not least because Hixie says exactly as much
  140. # [23:21] <shepazu> so, I think it's not unrelated at all
  141. # [23:22] <jgraham> shepazu: I disagree and think that Hixie's position has been overstated
  142. # [23:23] <shepazu> yeah, it's been overstated again and again, such as by Lachy above
  143. # [23:23] <shepazu> that rhetoric has turned lack of cooperation into a virtue
  144. # [23:24] <Lachy> shepazu, what? When did I overstate Hixie's position?
  145. # [23:24] <jgraham> shepazu: where did Lachy state Hixie's opinion? s far as I can tell "this consensus nonsense" was purely Lachy's position (which he has now clarified)
  146. # [23:27] <shepazu> jgraham: any given instance of tearing down consensus can be argued and justified and nuanced into a more defensible position, but in aggregate, the attitude persists and grows when it's not checked... I'm not going to keep arguing on this line of reasoning, because I don't think it's productive and doesn't seem to be sincere
  147. # [23:27] * jgraham wonders who is tearing down consensus
  148. # [23:28] * Joins: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167)
  149. # [23:28] <shepazu> here's my statement: the W3C works by consensus, and if you want to enjoy the benefits of working in W3C, you have to abide by that (assuming the chairs are doing their job)
  150. # [23:28] <Lachy> shepazu, If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be using a strawman argument. In any case, there seems to be some miscommunication here
  151. # [23:29] <shepazu> Lachy: then maybe you should choose your words more carefully
  152. # [23:29] <jgraham> shepazu: Understood. I would be interested in knowing your opinion about the tradeoffs that the W3C process makes and whether you think they are the best ones
  153. # [23:30] <shepazu> jgraham: if you have specific question, and want to discuss it via email (maybe www-archive), I'd be happy to have that conversation, but not in IRC just now
  154. # [23:31] <Lachy> shepazu, I would, but It's not clear to me where the miscommunication lies and thus which words I should choose more carefully.
  155. # [23:31] <shepazu> jgraham: I think there are *lots* of things that could be improved in the W3C process, and in the HTML WG
  156. # [23:31] <jgraham> shepazu: No specific questions apart from the one I already posted
  157. # [23:31] <shepazu> jgraham: that's not specific enough
  158. # [23:32] <jgraham> shepazu: I think everyone agrees that there are things that could be improved in the HTMLWG but we don't have consensus on what those things are :)
  159. # [23:33] * jgraham is going to bed now
  160. # Session Close: Tue Jul 07 00:00:00 2009

The end :)