/irc-logs / w3c / #webapps / 2011-11-24 / end

Options:

# Session Start: Thu Nov 24 00:00:00 2011
# Session Ident: #webapps
# [00:18] <shepazu> dglazkov: check your inbox
# [00:18] <shepazu> and let me or MikeSmith know if you have any problems
# [00:20] <dglazkov> weee
# [00:20] <Ms2ger> And my inbox!
# [00:20] <dglazkov> the bugzilla link is angry at me
# [00:20] <Ms2ger> And don't use tracker, nobody likes that
# [00:20] <Ms2ger> Except for Bert Bos :)
# [00:21] <Josh_Soref> heh
# [00:21] <Ms2ger> He does!
# [00:21] * Ms2ger hopes he didn't break the confidentiality agreement by mentioning that
# [00:22] <dglazkov> shepazu: it yells "Sorry, you aren't a member of the 'editcomponents' group, and so you are not authorized to add, modify or delete products." in red
# [00:22] <Josh_Soref> to be fair, tracker has some hooks which are missing from bugzilla
# [00:22] <dglazkov> what's a tracker?
# [00:22] <Josh_Soref> rrsagent could be taught to file bug reports
# [00:22] <shepazu> hmmm
# [00:22] <dglazkov> is it like a slider?
# [00:22] <Josh_Soref> dglazkov: you don't want to know
# [00:22] <Josh_Soref> it's like a rudimentary bug list
# [00:22] <shepazu> I like tracker
# [00:23] <dglazkov> ok.
# [00:23] * dglazkov stop worrying his pretty little head.
# [00:23] <Josh_Soref> shepazu: out of curiosity, can you enumerate why?
# [00:23] <shepazu> I don't enumerate in public
# [00:23] <Josh_Soref> my guess is that your main reasons are easy to add items while on irc and easy to review/update while on irc
# [00:23] <Josh_Soref> the first of which isn't available for bugzilla, the second is, and the third isn't
# [00:24] <Josh_Soref> the first/last could actually be implemented relatively easily
# [00:24] <Josh_Soref> hixie got something similar to the first one for the html spec (anyone can spit at the html spec and a bug is created)
# [00:28] <shepazu> dglazkov: I probably screwed up in how I created the bugzilla product… I'll have someone who isn't incompetent do it
# [00:35] * Quits: Ms2ger (Ms2ger@91.181.139.95) (Quit: nn)
# [00:48] <Josh_Soref> shepazu: you have to create both a product and a component
# [00:48] <Josh_Soref> if you skip the component, you get nothing
# [00:54] <dglazkov> nothing seems sad.
# [00:55] <dglazkov> shepazu: thanks for accommodating me. I feel accommodated!
# [00:57] <shepazu> np :)
# [01:05] <shepazu> thanks, Josh_Soref
# [01:06] <shepazu> dglazkov: try this http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/editcomponents.cgi?action=edit&product=WebAppsWG&component=Component%20Model
# [01:06] <dglazkov> it still feels the same anger toward me :(
# [01:07] <shepazu> grrr
# [01:07] * dglazkov tries to hug bugzilla
# [01:16] <Josh_Soref> shepazu: hey
# [01:16] <Josh_Soref> you're the team contact for webapps, right?
# [01:16] <Josh_Soref> can i get you to review three tpac minutes so i can be happy and send them to the list?
# [01:16] <shepazu> uh
# [01:16] <shepazu> what?
# [01:17] <Josh_Soref> i fixed up the minutes for webapps from tpac
# [01:17] <Josh_Soref> but i don't think i've sent them to be commited over the bad autogenerated version
# [01:17] <Josh_Soref> and i'd kinda like someone to review them
# [01:19] <shepazu> Josh_Soref: why not simply send them to the list?
# [01:19] * Josh_Soref doesn't like publicly iterating
# [01:19] * Josh_Soref also doesn't find lists particularly useful at getting feedback on minutes
# [01:19] <Josh_Soref> it rarely happens in-my-experience
# [01:20] <shepazu> Josh_Soref: I don't know what you're wanting me to review, exactly
# [01:20] <shepazu> or why
# [01:21] <Josh_Soref> slightly redacted minutes from webapps's tpac f2f's
# [01:21] <Josh_Soref> partially to make sure that all the speakers are correct
# [01:21] <shepazu> yes, but why?
# [01:21] <Josh_Soref> e.g. AB is sometimes ArtB and sometimes AdrianBate
# [01:21] <Josh_Soref> JS is sometimes sicking and sometimes timeless
# [01:21] <shepazu> I'm not sure I'd know any better than you who said what
# [01:21] <Josh_Soref> (and sometimes ECMAScript)
# [01:22] * Josh_Soref gives up
# [01:23] <shepazu> sorry, that was 3 weeks ago, I wasn't at all the meetings, and I was distracted in the meantime by a conference… I trust that you redacted them well, and if we hear of a problem, we'll fix it
# [01:23] <Josh_Soref> dglazkov: hey, could you use a spell checker in your posts to the ML?
# [01:23] <Josh_Soref> even firefox can tell you that `supersed` is wrong
# [01:24] <dglazkov> Josh_Soref: superecede
# [01:24] <Josh_Soref> still wrong, ask firefox ;-)
# [01:24] <dglazkov> supercide
# [01:24] <dglazkov> stupercede
# [01:24] <Josh_Soref> -> supersede
# [01:25] <Josh_Soref> fwiw, but really, your favorite web browser can help you w/ this
# [01:25] <dglazkov> instead of nitpicking my spelling, can you help me understand how to add an hg repo to dvcs.w3.org?
# [01:25] <Josh_Soref> you don't
# [01:25] <Josh_Soref> you ask W3 Team to do it
# [01:26] * Josh_Soref thinks that might mean shepazu here
# [01:26] <Josh_Soref> but glad to be of service :)
# [01:26] <dglazkov> I love your spellchecking services!
# [01:27] <Josh_Soref> you were @ the wednesday breakout
# [01:27] <Josh_Soref> maybe i can get you to review that ..
# [01:27] <MikeSmith> dglazkov, shepazu - I can add the repo
# [01:27] <dglazkov> MikeSmith: <3
# [01:27] <MikeSmith> what do we want to name it?
# [01:28] <dglazkov> MikeSmith: can you call it web-components
# [01:28] <dglazkov> hmm
# [01:28] <dglazkov> consistency says it should be webcomponents, the web-intents is the odd man out.
# [01:29] <Josh_Soref> heh
# [01:29] * Josh_Soref grumbles
# [01:29] <Josh_Soref> web-intents is too new
# [01:29] <Josh_Soref> get MikeSmith to rename it
# [01:29] <dglazkov> webcomponents it is
# [01:29] <Josh_Soref> and have him bug whomever misnamed it so it doesn't happen again
# [01:29] <Josh_Soref> it's fairly easy for people to fix their existing hg clones
# [01:30] <Josh_Soref> (just remove a - from web-intents/.hg/hgrc [paths] default= )
# [01:30] <MikeSmith> please let's not bikeshed on repo naming conventions
# [01:30] <MikeSmith> I will do webcomponents
# [01:30] <MikeSmith> and I'm the one who named web-intents so you can blame me
# [01:32] <Josh_Soref> ok, can you try and avoid letting it happen again? :)
# [01:33] * dglazkov wonders if Josh_Soref needs a hug too
# [01:33] <Josh_Soref> yes
# [01:33] <Josh_Soref> and a secretary to file my expenses
# [01:33] <dglazkov> >:D<
# [01:39] <MikeSmith> Josh_Soref: I think the next one I create will be in camel case
# [01:39] <MikeSmith> just for fun
# [01:39] <MikeSmith> mix it up some
# [01:39] <Josh_Soref> grr
# [01:40] <MikeSmith> sorry man
# [01:41] <MikeSmith> you don't want me behind the wheel of the consistency bus
# [01:41] <dglazkov> for consistency, the consistency bus has two steering wheels, one for each side.
# [01:42] <MikeSmith> heh
# [01:43] <MikeSmith> so who needs perms for pushing to the webcomponents repo?
# [01:43] <MikeSmith> dglazkov: just you for now?
# [01:44] <Josh_Soref> MikeSmith: webapps
# [01:44] <Josh_Soref> since it's theoretically more or less in the webapps wg
# [01:44] <Josh_Soref> no one else will push, and hg is append only, so there's little harm in starting w/ that group
# [01:47] <MikeSmith> dunno about that
# [01:48] <MikeSmith> there are a lot of people in webapps
# [01:48] <MikeSmith> and in general it makes sense to restrict write access only to people who actually need it
# [01:48] * Josh_Soref shrugs
# [01:49] <MikeSmith> anyway, it's set up now so that anybody from webapps can push
# [01:49] <MikeSmith> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents
# [01:56] <shepazu> MikeSmith: you are a magic man
# [01:56] <MikeSmith> I ride the magic bus
# [02:13] * Joins: rogerk (Adium@108.7.70.167)
# [02:14] * Quits: rogerk (Adium@108.7.70.167) (Quit: Leaving.)
# [02:33] * Quits: sicking (chatzilla@159.63.23.38) (Ping timeout)
# [03:06] * Josh_Soref slaps Exchange Server
# [03:07] <Josh_Soref> it refuses to let me send email containing perl scripts
# Session Close: Thu Nov 24 03:09:02 2011
#
# Session Start: Thu Nov 24 03:09:02 2011
# Session Ident: #webapps
# [03:09] * Disconnected
# [03:10] * Attempting to rejoin channel #webapps
# [03:10] * Rejoined channel #webapps
# [03:10] * Topic is 'Web Applications - logged at http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/'
# [03:10] * Set by Ms2ger on Mon Nov 07 21:06:47
# [03:10] * Quits: krijnh (krijnhoetm@145.53.238.157) (Ping timeout)
# [03:54] * Joins: test (qw3birc@128.30.52.28)
# [03:55] * Joins: miketaylr (miketaylr@24.42.93.245)
# [03:57] * Quits: test (qw3birc@128.30.52.28) (Quit: Page closed)
# [04:29] * Joins: MikeSmith_ (MikeSmith@114.48.70.12)
# [04:30] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@111.191.102.208) (Ping timeout)
# [04:30] * MikeSmith_ is now known as MikeSmith
# [05:16] * Quits: miketaylr (miketaylr@24.42.93.245) (Quit: miketaylr)
# [05:40] * Joins: sicking (chatzilla@98.210.155.80)
# [06:00] * Joins: rniwa (rniwa@70.89.66.218)
# [07:16] * Quits: sicking (chatzilla@98.210.155.80) (Ping timeout)
# [07:48] * Quits: rniwa (rniwa@70.89.66.218) (Quit: rniwa)
# [08:05] * Joins: sicking (chatzilla@98.210.155.80)
# [08:50] * heycam|away is now known as heycam
# [09:53] * heycam is now known as heycam|away
# [10:29] * Joins: MikeSmith_ (MikeSmith@111.191.101.188)
# [10:31] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@114.48.70.12) (Ping timeout)
# [10:31] * MikeSmith_ is now known as MikeSmith
# [10:34] * Quits: dveditz (dveditz@63.249.86.37) (Quit: dveditz)
# [11:04] * Joins: smaug (chatzilla@85.78.136.193)
# [11:14] * Quits: smaug (chatzilla@85.78.136.193) (Ping timeout)
# [11:20] * Quits: Lachy (Lachy@84.215.59.50) (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
# [11:42] * Joins: Lachy (Lachy@213.236.208.247)
# [11:42] * Joins: smaug (chatzilla@85.78.77.84)
# [11:42] * Quits: sicking (chatzilla@98.210.155.80) (Ping timeout)
# [11:46] * Quits: smaug (chatzilla@85.78.77.84) (Ping timeout)
# [11:51] * Quits: Lachy (Lachy@213.236.208.247) (Ping timeout)
# [12:00] * Joins: Lachy (Lachy@213.236.208.22)
# [12:07] * Joins: smaug (chatzilla@193.199.85.55)
# [12:14] * Quits: smaug (chatzilla@193.199.85.55) (Ping timeout)
# [12:24] <anne> alright I caved
# [12:24] <anne> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#specification-history
# [12:38] * Joins: smaug (chatzilla@85.77.144.34)
# [12:52] * Quits: smaug (chatzilla@85.77.144.34) (Ping timeout)
# [13:16] * Joins: smaug (chatzilla@85.76.90.48)
# [13:19] * Quits: smaug (chatzilla@85.76.90.48) (Ping timeout)
# [13:39] * Joins: smaug (chatzilla@85.76.111.58)
# [13:51] * Quits: smaug (chatzilla@85.76.111.58) (Ping timeout)
# [14:15] * Joins: darobin (robin@194.79.160.134)
# [14:18] * Joins: smaug (chatzilla@85.78.51.60)
# [14:21] * Quits: smaug (chatzilla@85.78.51.60) (Ping timeout)
# [14:40] * Joins: smaug (chatzilla@85.77.39.24)
# [14:50] * Quits: smaug (chatzilla@85.77.39.24) (Ping timeout)
# [15:13] * Joins: smaug (chatzilla@193.199.62.73)
# [15:34] * Quits: smaug (chatzilla@193.199.62.73) (Ping timeout)
# [15:58] * Joins: smaug (chatzilla@85.78.88.64)
# [16:06] * Quits: smaug (chatzilla@85.78.88.64) (Ping timeout)
# [16:28] * Joins: smaug (chatzilla@193.64.22.151)
# [16:29] * Joins: MikeSmith_ (MikeSmith@114.48.235.86)
# [16:31] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@111.191.101.188) (Ping timeout)
# [16:31] * MikeSmith_ is now known as MikeSmith
# [16:38] * Quits: smaug (chatzilla@193.64.22.151) (Ping timeout)
# [17:20] <shepazu> anne: could you please add the W3C copyright back to the XHR editor's draft?
# [17:25] <anne> since when are editor's draft considered anything but official by the W3C?
# [17:26] <anne> oops, other way around :)
# [17:28] <shepazu> anne: they are documents published on W3C's site, so regardless of their place in the PD, they are under W3C copyright
# [17:30] <shepazu> in other words, you don't get to decide the copyright under which W3C publishes documents, regardless of where on our site they are published
# [17:30] <shepazu> nor do I
# [17:30] <anne> is any email I write also under W3C copyright?
# [17:30] <shepazu> that's up to W3C management and legal
# [17:31] <shepazu> not sure
# [17:31] <anne> I never agreed to such a thing I believe
# [17:31] <shepazu> you do grant us archive authorization, for sure
# [17:31] <anne> well yes
# [17:31] <shepazu> I don't know the legal implications of that
# [17:31] <anne> I have not done that for dcvs or dev.w3.org
# [17:32] <anne> allowing someone to archive a message and signing copyright away are quite different I would hope
# [17:32] <anne> sorry, not signing away
# [17:32] <shepazu> anne: I'm not interested in debating it on my holiday… I guess I just have a simple question: are you willing to revert the copyright declaration or not, and if so, then when?
# [17:32] <anne> granting copyright
# [17:33] <anne> by revert you mean add?
# [17:33] <anne> I'd like some answers to my questions
# [17:33] <shepazu> I mean add back, like in previous drafts
# [17:34] <shepazu> what questions do you want answers to?
# [17:35] <anne> as far as I can tell I never agreed to http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620#holds for editor's drafts
# [17:36] <anne> we can also host the editor's draft elsewhere of course
# [17:36] <shepazu> I think that should be the decision of the WG, not the editor
# [17:39] <anne> in fact, community groups use a different license for documents
# [17:39] <anne> and they also publish on the W3C site
# [17:39] <shepazu> anne: IANAL, without knowing what your employment contract states, I would guess that Opera agreed to http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620#holds, and that as an employee of Opera, paid by them to do this work, the copyright grant is implicit
# [17:40] <anne> for documents published by a WG, sure
# [17:40] <anne> but the editor's draft has no official standing
# [17:40] <anne> people tell me that all the time
# [17:40] <shepazu> anne: again, really not interested in the debate, I'm just asking you a simple question: are you willing to put the W3C copyright declaration on your drafts or not, and if so, then when?
# [17:41] <anne> given the answers to my questions thus far, no
# [17:41] <shepazu> ok, that's what I needed to know, thanks
# [17:42] <anne> I'm not really being given sufficient information
# [17:42] <anne> and I was told otherwise by someone else from the W3C
# [17:42] <shepazu> anne: if you'd like to list some questions (mostly I just saw statements and claims, not questions), I'm happy to see if someone qualified can answer them for you
# [17:42] <anne> as I relayed to you already
# [17:43] <shepazu> anne: no, you really didn't… you made some vague reference, but didn't tell me who said it, or precisely what they said
# [17:43] <anne> "When did I agree to license editor's drafts under the W3C copyright?"
# [17:43] <shepazu> anne: could you please send an email about it?
# [17:43] <anne> I was told that editor's drafts have no official standing and I can do whatever I want with them.
# [17:44] <anne> Which is true, certainly historically when e.g. XHTML 2.0 drafts were hosted on shane.aptest or some such
# [17:44] <shepazu> anne: who told you that? and under what circumstance? that could mean any number of things…
# [17:45] <shepazu> anne: you keep trying to debate me, but I'm just the messenger here… I don't give a flying doughnut for these philosophical meanderings
# [17:47] <shepazu> FWIW, regardless of what the PD says about Editor's Drafts, I think our real-world process has shifted such that editor's drafts are an important part of a WG's process of creating a spec, and now that they are mostly visisble, they should have some sort of well-defined status
# [17:48] <anne> I'm willing to debate whoever is trying you to be the messenger. That does indeed seem like it would be simpler.
# [17:50] <shepazu> anne: grammatical horror aside, I wonder why you feel the need to debate on this matter? why the sudden change and aggressive tone?
# [17:50] <shepazu> when has the copyright declaration gotten in the way?
# [17:52] <anne> oh hey, I'm not aggressive, I'm just passionate about this copyright thingie
# [17:52] * Quits: Lachy (Lachy@213.236.208.22) (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
# [17:53] <anne> since you seemed to be saying you were doing this for someone else, it might be easier if that person and I talk directly
# [17:53] <shepazu> hmmm, you seem like you're being pretty aggressive to me, with statements like, "I'd like some answers to my questions" and "I never agreed to such a thing I believe"
# [17:54] <dom> anne, I think taking a document that is under a given copyright and changing its copyright can only be done if you own that copyright
# [17:54] <shepazu> and changing the copyright assignment without a public discussion, etc…. all of that seems very agressive
# [17:54] <anne> well, I don't just want to revert a conscious change because you ask me without me getting insight as to why
# [17:54] <dom> so no matter the standing or the location of that document, you can't do unless you've been authorized by the owner
# [17:54] <anne> dom: correct
# [17:55] <anne> dom: you know the W3C does not hold exclusive copyright I hope
# [17:55] <dom> indeed
# [17:55] <anne> okay
# [17:56] <dom> but do you own the copyright of the work you do for opera?
# [17:56] <anne> that would be between me and my employer
# [17:57] <dom> sure
# [17:57] <shepazu> anne: not exclusively, since Opera has some agreements with W3C about copyright assignment
# [17:57] * shepazu doesn't know what those agreements are, precisely
# [17:58] <darobin> yay! a copyright discussion
# [17:58] <dom> the other question is whether you (or your employer) has full copyright on the entirety of the documents you edit
# [17:58] * darobin trots off to go put some good chicken in the oven
# [17:58] <darobin> happy thanksgiving :)
# [17:58] <anne> is that today?
# [17:58] <shepazu> darobin: we're having tofurducken!
# [17:58] <darobin> OMG, will you Americans leave nothing unviolated?
# [17:59] <shepazu> anne: yes, thus my statement about my holiday
# [17:59] <anne> dom: given that we wrote it I would say yes, but I welcome pointers
# [17:59] <darobin> you seem to have this magical trick for being culturally insensitive, even against your own culture :-)
# [17:59] <shepazu> (in the US, we make a distinction between "holiday" and "vacation")
# [17:59] <anne> aah
# [17:59] <anne> so that's what that is
# [17:59] <anne> thanks shepazu
# [18:00] <anne> shepazu: just remember I never asked you to look into this now :)
# [18:00] <dom> anne, I don't have pointers, I'm just asking :)
# [18:00] <darobin> anyway, my thanksgiving party was cancelled so instead I'm making delicious chicken for a few friends
# [18:00] <anne> dom: fair enough
# [18:00] <dom> (whether you had incorporated text from others)
# [18:00] <shepazu> darobin: I'm American, sir… we have no culture!
# [18:00] <shepazu> anne: no, you didn't, but others did
# [18:00] <anne> since we are all talking about food I might as well mention I have ordered some Indian lamb curry thingie and it's going to be awesome
# [18:01] <anne> well, I hope
# [18:01] <dom> sounds yummy
# [18:01] <shepazu> darobin: we're having Megan's mom and grandparents over
# [18:02] <anne> dom: ah, like that, other than from Hixie, no
# [18:02] <shepazu> yummy? sound disgusting… why would you ruin a perfectly good curry by dropping a dead animal in it?
# [18:02] <dom> :)
# [18:02] * shepazu is clearly a villager
# [18:03] * Quits: darobin (robin@194.79.160.134) (Ping timeout)
# [18:05] <anne> shepazu: I think my behavior is defensive btw
# [18:05] <anne> i.e. it flows forth from trying to protect the change I made
# [18:05] <shepazu> anne: doesn't seem that way to me, but I'm also not a psychologist or sociologist
# [18:05] <anne> if we have to categorize it
# [18:07] <dom> FWIW, beyond the legal concerns (on which I don't have enough details or expertise), one of my concerns is that many people have contributed bug reports, discussions etc to the drafts as they were, with no expectation they would be made public domain
# [18:08] <shepazu> anne: from the perspective of social mores, you are pushing back against something most other people seem to agree with… that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is an aggressive violation of social mores… (for example, my being a vegetarian and an atheist are both aggressive violations of US mores, regardless of their relative ethical values)
# [18:09] <anne> most other people?
# [18:09] <shepazu> anne, what's not clear to me is *why* you are choosing to change the copyright declaration, right now, when you've abided by it for so many years before… you haven't stated why this seems necessary to you now
# [18:10] <shepazu> anne: yes, most other editors at W3C
# [18:10] <anne> not caring with and agreeing are different
# [18:10] <anne> I used to not even realize this was an issue
# [18:10] <anne> at some point I did, then I learned I could do something
# [18:10] <anne> and now I did
# [18:10] <shepazu> not necessarily… mores are usually unwritten or unarticulated
# [18:11] <shepazu> anne: yes, but why do you now think it's an issue, and precisely what is the issue?
# [18:11] <anne> I'm saying that if you ask the people editing documents you might get different answers than if you assume they all think it is okay
# [18:11] <anne> I thought you did not want to debate this?
# [18:12] <shepazu> anne: possibly… and possibly not
# [18:12] <anne> Licensing was discussed in the HTML WG a while back
# [18:12] <anne> those are my concerns
# [18:12] <shepazu> anne: I'm not debating, I'm trying to find out your reasoning, that's different
# [18:12] <anne> and this is explaining how I'm wrong?
# [18:13] <anne> :)
# [18:13] <shepazu> anne: I never said you were wrong, I said you seemed to be acting aggressively
# [18:13] <shepazu> anne, so, to your mind, this is the next stage of the HTML WG document license debate?
# [18:13] <anne> aggressive is so negative
# [18:13] <anne> why so negative
# [18:16] <anne> yeah, maybe, I haven't really thought about it in terms of that
# [18:16] <anne> to my mind this seems like the right thing to do, apart from maybe having a community group for XHR so we can get patent protection sooner
# [18:16] <shepazu> aggressive: "Pursuing one's aims and interests forcefully; confrontational"
# [18:19] * Joins: Ms2ger (Ms2ger@91.181.139.95)
# [18:22] <shepazu> ok, I'm off to do cooking
# [18:22] <shepazu> later, folks
# [18:22] <Ms2ger> You, cooking? :)
# [18:26] <anne> it's not forced
# [18:26] <anne> I'm just not asking permission
# [18:26] <anne> I ask forgiveness, but it's not clear yet that's required
# [18:29] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@114.48.235.86) (Ping timeout)
# [18:30] <anne> I wish more observation was paid "from above" (W3C) to the technical work I deliver. Instead I usually get feedback when I do something that is procedurally questionable. This TPAC was the first time I got a thank you, from Jeff. I did not know what to say.
# [18:30] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@114.48.235.86)
# [18:31] <shepazu> Ms2ger, it's not clear to me that you know anything about me at all… in fact, I used to be a cook at a restaurant (among a bunch of other jobs)… it's not nice to jump to conclusions about people you don't know
# [18:33] <shepazu> anne: if you don't feel appreciated, that's a systemic problem with W3C, because internally, we all know that it is our editors, WG participants, active mailing list contributors, reviewers, chairs, and other volunteers that make W3C work at all
# [18:33] <shepazu> if we aren't conveying that, then we are doing something wrong
# [18:34] <shepazu> personally, as much of a PITA as I think you are, I appreciate all the good technical work you do, and I genuinely think you are moving the Web forward in a positive direction
# [18:39] <anne> thanks, I do feel appreciated fwiw, just not by the W3C
# [18:39] <shepazu> anne: then what can we do to fix that?
# [18:41] <anne> that's a tough question
# [18:42] <Hixie> i feel the same way, fwiw. I think the way to fix it is by participating technically in the work and letting us do things the way we want procedurally.
# [18:42] <Hixie> instead, it feels like there's no technical participation, and the w3c wants to own our work
# [18:44] <dom> that's really a pity if that's the way you feel about it :(
# [18:44] * Joins: smaug (chatzilla@82.181.151.161)
# [18:44] <shepazu> Hixie: I do try to participate technically in the work, as do Mike, PLH, Dom, and other technical staff
# [18:44] <dom> I personally find the work you guys truly amazing in many ways
# [18:45] <shepazu> I try to impose as little procedural overhead as possible, given that we have some strong feelings from our members about how things need to be done from an IP perspective
# [18:46] <anne> which happens to be (in this case) directly opposite to what the people doing the work want
# [18:46] <shepazu> and, like you, I often feel unappreciated, but by you guys rather than by W3C
# [18:47] <shepazu> anne: unfortunately, your employers are the ones telling us that they want, for example, a non-forking license
# [18:47] <Hixie> shepazu: dom has done technical work with the webidl checker, and you and mike have done some bits of technical work here and there. but the vast majority of my interactions with all of you is over procedural stuff where you want me to do things your way.
# [18:47] <anne> I cannot comment on that either way in public I think
# [18:47] <shepazu> honestly, I don't care much one way or the other about the license, I'm more interested in progress on a technical level, because I think that has the most impact
# [18:48] <Hixie> shepazu: (i'm just saying what it feels like, i agree that it may well be that you do mostly technical work; it just doesn't feel that way)
# [18:48] <shepazu> see, Hixie, that "some bits of technical work here and there" is why I feel unappreciated
# [18:48] <Hixie> i can totally believe this is mutual :-)
# [18:48] <shepazu> so, thanks! that's really friendly
# [18:51] <dom> hmm... I don't know that it's unfriendly as such, it's a perception
# [18:51] <shepazu> in any case, Hixie, I was asking anne how he feels, and how he thinks W3C could better express our thanks… I guess he can answer for himself
# [18:51] * dom would have liked to continue that discussion, but most now turn to family matters... hope we can resume it later
# [18:52] <anne> shepazu: Hixie is better at expressing himself it seems :)
# [18:52] <shepazu> anne: not to put you on the spot, just to open the door to you thinking about it… I'm interested in your perspective
# [18:52] <anne> shepazu: and what he said after I said "that's a tough question" closely resembles how I feel about it
# [18:53] <shepazu> if something occurs to you down the line, let me know
# [18:56] <Hixie> (to elaborate on what i said above -- i think i feel this way because as the guy doing work, i feel i should get to decide how i work. and it's only if i decide to work at the w3c that i _can't_ decide how i work. this automatically makes working with the w3c a negative experience.)
# [18:56] <anne> I guess my mine gripe is people forcing undocumented rules on me and that almost being my sole interaction with Chairs and the Team. Which is rare, but when it happens I am reminded why I want to get out of this.
# [18:56] <anne> s/mine/main/
# [18:57] <anne> After that comes documented rules I disagree with that are nigh on impossible to change and nobody on the inside (other than Mike) championing my position.
# [18:57] <shepazu> Hixie: you aren't the only one doing the work, that's why there are working groups, and that's where I think some of the tension lies… I hope you aren't saying that the editor is not the only one doing work?
# [18:58] <shepazu> anne: you might ask Mike about who in W3C staff is championing which ideas
# [18:58] <anne> I think the editor is doing by and far most of the work. Especially in case of HTML.
# [19:00] <shepazu> I agree that the editor does the lion's share of the work, but not *all* the work, and there are other people who also need to be listened to
# [19:01] <anne> Definitely, without feedback it's just fiction
# [19:05] <smaug> (a bit of topic - editor does most of the work, but there really should be some kind of reviewing phase like there is in software development. ...and /me goes back to do something else...)
# [19:07] <shepazu> yes, more cooking calls
# [19:07] <shepazu> maybe back later
# [19:08] <anne> smaug: yes, once we have enough people to maintain trunk, we can think about people maintaining, branches...
# [19:08] <smaug> I'm not talking about branches or trunk
# [19:08] <smaug> but sure, reviewing needs more people
# [19:08] <anne> indeed
# [19:09] <anne> and constraining spec editors even more with review is a cure worse than the problem I think
# [19:10] <anne> almost always changes result from mailing list discussion and are then checked after they are made
# [19:10] <smaug> not sure. in software development reviews are must. I'm not sure how writing pseudo-code to specs is really that different.
# [19:11] <anne> I'm not saying it is
# [19:13] <Hixie> smaug: at least for HTML, the most recent thing I've been working on is making it easier to review patches.
# [19:13] <Hixie> smaug: you can now subscribe to specific topics in the HTML spec and get e-mailed diffs when those topics are affected
# [19:14] <smaug> Hixie: yeah, that sounds good
# [19:16] <Ms2ger> Hixie, how do you do that, btw?
# [19:17] <anne> having some of the HTML tooling available for other specs would be cool
# [19:18] <Hixie> Ms2ger: some scripts that examine the diffs, and some annotations in the spec source listing the topics
# [19:18] <Ms2ger> And how does one subscribe? :)
# [19:19] <Hixie> "Edit subscriptions" at the top right of the spec
# [19:19] <Hixie> see whatwg mail
# [19:19] <Hixie> shepazu: i'm the only one doing editing work on the html spec. there are others doing other work, e.g. reviewing, and test suite development.
# [19:19] <Hixie> shepazu: for reviewing, I support pretty much every possible reviewing mechanism you can imagine
# [19:19] <Ms2ger> I'm blind indeed :)
# [19:19] <Hixie> shepazu: and for test suite development, i again have put no limitats on how people do it
# [19:20] <Hixie> shepazu: so why would limitations be put on how i edit?
# [19:21] <shepazu> Hixie: because you make changes other people in the group don't agree with?
# [19:22] <Hixie> shepazu: so?
# [19:22] <Hixie> shepazu: there's plenty of things in the html spec i disagree with too
# [19:22] <Hixie> shepazu: it's not about who agrees with it, it's about what is technically the right way to go
# [19:23] <Hixie> shepazu: why does w3c impose its "consensus" ideals on my work?
# [19:23] <anne> The weird thing in the HTML WG is that the entire process is set up around disagreeing with the editor, while most of the time people agree.
# [19:25] <anne> Anyway, gonna play some Zelda and then go out for a movie; maybe back later, maybe next week
# [19:25] <shepazu> so, since you have an unusual degree of power to change the spec in many ways, you should also have an unusual degree of oversight applied to those changes… that seems reasonable to me… insofar as you have disagreed with the HTML WG (and others) on what the spec says, and have apparently been reluctant to change it, the HTML WG had to creat a formal process for addressing issues that arise… that's not W3C staff imposing anything, that's the WG itself
# [19:25] <shepazu> self-regulating
# [19:26] <shepazu> anne: that's not weird at all… you don't need a process for issues people agree on
# [19:26] <shepazu> only for stuff they disagree on
# [19:26] <Hixie> shepazu: i have no power whatsoever, it's the implementors who have the power. that the w3c continues to misunderstand that is baffling to me.
# [19:26] <anne> the process creates a ton of work for the people that agree
# [19:26] <anne> it's weird
# [19:27] <anne> it's usually only a handful of people that disagree
# [19:27] <shepazu> Hixie: sorry, but I think that's a disingenuous statement, judging on things I've heard implementers say
# [19:27] <Hixie> shepazu: and even if i did have power, the point is that going to the w3c means i get this idiotic time-wasting process, while not going to the w3c means i don't, *and* the spec would be better
# [19:27] <anne> that's why I mostly stopped caring
# [19:27] <Hixie> shepazu: hence why the w3c gets cast in a negative light
# [19:28] <Hixie> shepazu: if a browser vendor thinks i have power, they are unfortunately mistaken. but i doubt they actually believe that, given the many times that they have proven my point here.
# [19:29] <shepazu> Hixie: unfortunately, I don't think W3C could ever change enough to please you in particular, because you don't seem to want to be pleased… you have your own system, over at WHATWG, and that's the only system you will be satisfied by
# [19:29] <Hixie> given that the whatwg "system" has changed many times over the years, that's obviously not true
# [19:29] <shepazu> actually, it proves it
# [19:29] <Hixie> i will only be satisfied by one system... but i've been satisfied by many...? what?
# [19:30] <Hixie> but i can easily believe that the w3c won't change sufficiently -- jeff has even told me that point blank. he said to use the CGs instead.
# [19:30] <Hixie> which we're now doing, e.g. with WebVTT.
# [19:30] <shepazu> you change the system according to the way you want it to run… the system you want is the one that you have control over (as much as you can, in negotiations with other key players)
# [19:31] <shepazu> there is no perfect system…. only a naive person thinks otherwise… systems are best which adapt to conditions around them
# [19:31] <Hixie> yes, as the editor i feel i should be able to decide how i edit, i said as much earlier
# [19:31] <Hixie> i don't see why the w3c couldn't provide such an environment
# [19:31] <Hixie> the CGs are close to it
# [19:32] <shepazu> Hixie: I don't think this is so much a flaw in the system, as you wanting to do whatever you feel you can
# [19:32] <Hixie> i think editors should be able to edit as they wish, and reviewers review as they wish, and test suite writers write test suites as they wish
# [19:32] <shepazu> which wouldn't be a problem, if other people didn't disagree… I agree that that's inconvenient, but there we are, life is messy
# [19:32] <Hixie> and those who do things in such a way as to address the needs of their "customers" will be sucessful
# [19:33] <Hixie> agreement or disagreement is irrelevant, imho
# [19:33] <shepazu> Hixie: you say that because that's the position that gives you the most authority
# [19:33] <Hixie> consensus has no place here
# [19:33] <Hixie> ...
# [19:33] <Hixie> spec writers have no authority
# [19:33] <Hixie> implementors do
# [19:33] <shepazu> you keep claiming that, but you don't behave that way
# [19:34] <Hixie> ?
# [19:34] <Hixie> dude if i had any authority, the html spec would be so vastly different it's not even funny
# [19:34] <Hixie> e.g. we'd be using xforms for the forms component
# [19:35] <shepazu> yes, I know the monolog you want to put on the record, I hear it again and again
# [19:35] <Hixie> instead of the asinine HTML forms rube-goldberg machine
# [19:35] <Hixie> so in what way do you think i behave as if i had any authority?
# [19:36] <Hixie> as opposed to someone who is acting to reflect the browsers or other relevant implementors?
# [19:36] <shepazu> I'm not sure it's a good use of my time to pretend to act like the straightman for your one-liners about how you have no authority, when it's clear to anyone watching that you have undue authority (and also that you tend to make good technical decisions, which is why you are granted such authority)
# [19:38] <Hixie> it's not authority if it's conditional
# [19:38] <Hixie> if my authority is limited to being able to say things that people want me to say, then it's a rather illusionary authority
# [19:39] <shepazu> TW, I say "undue" because you are not the only one who makes good technical decisions, but yours are given precedence because of your role… most decisions are arbitrary, drawn from a set of equally good technical options
# [19:39] <shepazu> er, "BTW"
# [19:40] <Hixie> oh sure, within a set of equally valid decisions that every implementor is equally ok with, i get to pick the one i want
# [19:40] <Hixie> if that's what you mean by "undue authority" then ok
# [19:41] <shepazu> Hixie: please don't pretend that you don't have exatraordinary influence over how those decisions get made
# [19:41] <shepazu> and thus what implementers are willing to do
# [19:41] <Hixie> lots of people have _influence_
# [19:41] <Hixie> i thought you were arguing i had _authority_
# [19:41] <shepazu> you have both
# [19:42] <Hixie> influence i will entirely grant you that i have. i would have that regardless of my role (e.g. i have influence on specs i don't work on)
# [19:43] <shepazu> this seems a bit like the claim that the author of a novel has "influence" over what the characters do and say
# [19:43] <Hixie> are you saying everyone with influence should have processes set in place to check that influence? because that's certainly not what the w3c tries to do, and would likely be rather controversial.
# [19:43] <Hixie> a novel is fiction
# [19:43] <shepazu> so is a spec, until it's implemented
# [19:43] <Hixie> s/until/unless/
# [19:44] <shepazu> either way
# [19:44] <Hixie> no, not either way
# [19:44] <shepazu> yes, either way
# [19:44] <Hixie> the ones that get implemented are the ones i don't have authority over
# [19:44] <Hixie> if i was ok writing specs that didn't get implemented, i'd agree i had authority
# [19:45] <shepazu> my simple mind can't keep up with your powerful logical gymnastics
# [19:46] <shepazu> I think I'll go relax or do some small bits of technical work here and there, instead
# [19:51] <Hixie> that is the sum total of the argument every time someone claims i have authority
# [19:51] <Hixie> first they say i have some sort of totalatarian authority over everything
# [19:52] <Hixie> it slowly gets reduce to "well you have some influence over what browsers want" and "you get to decide which of several completely equivalent decisions to make when no browser vendors have an opinion"
# [19:53] <anne> conformance has less checks and balances I guess
# [19:53] <Hixie> which i am happy to agree with, but that's like saying a prisoner has freedom because he can pick a side of a cell to sit on
# [19:53] <shepazu> Hixie: I never claimed you have totalitarian authority, but I do recognize that you are trying to protray any opposition in such emotionally loaded terms to make it seem less reasonable
# [19:53] <Hixie> anne: only insofar as hsivonen is the only person with power there :-)
# [19:54] <Hixie> shepazu: whatever point you started from, the end point is the same
# [19:55] <Hixie> i do believe that w3c culture believes that spec editors, or rather specs, have actual power
# [19:55] <Hixie> i think this is the root of many problems in the w3c, e.g. it's what led to the xforms/xhtml2 fiasco
# [19:55] <anne> Hixie: well yes, but when he differs from opinion with you, it's hard for him to push his point
# [19:55] <Hixie> anyway, bbiab
# [19:55] <anne> Hixie: I guess he could ship non-conforming software and see what happens though
# [19:56] <shepazu> you try to weaken the perception of how much authority and influence you do have to make people feel less threatened by it, and your positions more sympathetic, but however much authority and influence you do have, you make it hard for many people to work with you, because in the gap between consensus and perceived positions, you have the maximum amount of influence
# [19:57] <smaug> I *think* our html5 parser does have some non-spec'ed behavior because hsivonen hasn't yet managed to convince Hixie
# [19:57] <shepazu> clever, but not very nice
# [19:59] <Josh_Soref> anne: acid3 as a test (before update) created one change in impls which was bad :)
# [20:00] <Josh_Soref> so if you consider it a `conformance checker`, it had `influence` (negative)
# [20:00] <Josh_Soref> thankfully that was fixed (recently)
# [20:00] <Ms2ger> Only one?
# [20:00] <anne> I think Acid3 was the last in a series of lessons that we really should not pay attention to status of a spec
# [20:01] <anne> and rather to the balance between where implementations are it and the features we want
# [20:01] <anne> are at*
# [20:02] <Josh_Soref> Ms2ger: there was one that was relatively seriously bad
# [20:02] <Josh_Soref> there were a couple of other corrections made
# [20:02] <Ms2ger> Also, Acid2
# [20:02] <shepazu> anne: I think that's jumping to a conclusion… I think the truth lies in the middle, where we need to change the way we make specs so that the status reflects what's really needed and/or implemented, backed up by tests developed in parallel
# [20:02] <Josh_Soref> but i can't recall how negative they were
# [20:03] <Josh_Soref> Ms2ger: i think people want to forget about acid2 :)
# [20:03] <Josh_Soref> (some of us have managed to do so already)
# [20:03] <Ms2ger> Now do the same to Acid2 :)
# [20:05] <anne> shepazu: I think that is what we are doing now
# [20:05] <shepazu> the Acid tests, especially Acid 1, were useful in that they gave people (content developers as well as implementers) as sense of how important testing is to interoperability… it's changed where we are in our expectations of the Web platform
# [20:05] <smaug> Josh_Soref: I'd rather forget Acid3 than Acid2 :)
# [20:06] <shepazu> anne: I think we're close, and moving in that direction, but we're clearly not there yet
# [20:06] <Josh_Soref> smaug: yeah, i don't recall acid2 being significantly harmful
# [20:06] <Josh_Soref> i can't claim it didn't have quirks
# [20:06] <anne> Acid2 did SGML comments for a while
# [20:06] <Josh_Soref> but i've fortunately(?) already forgotten most of it
# [20:06] <anne> and did <table><p>
# [20:06] <anne> euh
# [20:07] <anne> <p><table>
# [20:07] <Josh_Soref> anne: i happen to like SGML comments
# [20:07] <anne> does even
# [20:07] <Josh_Soref> (but i like quirks)
# [20:08] <anne> never mind me, Acid2 is perfect for you
# [20:08] <anne> it is for you
# [20:08] <anne> it is you
# [20:09] <anne> not sure what that simplifies to
# [20:09] <Ms2ger> It is not a witch?
# [20:09] <Josh_Soref> Christine O'Donnell ?
# [20:10] <Ms2ger> Congratulations, you just won a witch
# [20:10] <Josh_Soref> i am not a crook^w err test
# [20:13] * Quits: karl (karlcow@128.30.54.58) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
# [20:13] <shepazu> wow, Josh_Soref, going oldskool with a Nixon reference!
# [20:14] * Josh_Soref bows
# [20:14] * shepazu waits for a Checkers speech to drop
# [20:16] <Josh_Soref> i prefer catfood to dogfood
# [20:16] <Josh_Soref> and Hixie is definitely a cat person
# [20:16] <Josh_Soref> so we'll avoid checkers
# [20:16] <Josh_Soref> he might scare the denizens
# [20:30] <Josh_Soref> on politics
# [20:30] <Josh_Soref> the way everyone is being forced to do all work in webapps
# [20:30] <Josh_Soref> is incredibly amusing
# [20:31] <Josh_Soref> "we Vendor Y, partner of Vendor X don't want to do work in a WG where we can't talk to our partner"
# [20:31] <Josh_Soref> "we Vendor X can't step foot into any WG that isn't WebApps"
# [20:31] <Josh_Soref> "we Vendor Z agree that not having all vendors at the table is unfortunate and would rather be in a place where they all are"
# [20:32] <Ms2ger> "We Vendor U don't want to give up our patents, but don't want to say that in public"
# [20:32] <Josh_Soref> Vendor U will more or less say that to anyone who asks
# [20:33] <Josh_Soref> some vendor Us will also claim that they only have patents for defensive purposes
# [20:34] <Josh_Soref> grr, why doesn't etc\hosts on w8 do what i want(tm)?
# [20:34] <shepazu> Josh_Soref: I know of at least one vendor with lots of defensive patents that has as its stated and actual policy that they will gladly contribute any IP they have if it makes the specs better… they participate in teh SVG WG
# [20:34] <Josh_Soref> shepazu: wow
# [20:34] <shepazu> they are pretty easy to work with
# [20:35] <Josh_Soref> clearly they don't belong in WebApps/DAP
# [20:35] <Josh_Soref> easy to work with vendors don't fit with the culture :)
# [20:35] <shepazu> yes, they got burned in a patent scenario a long time ago, and learned that lesson well
# [20:35] <Josh_Soref> since they don't seem to be bad, would you mind naming them?
# [20:36] <shepazu> not for me to say
# [20:36] <Josh_Soref> it's nice to know the names of the few good men
# [20:37] <shepazu> I know of (but have not worked with) a company that insisted a spec have very specific language around some implementation details, on which they held essential claims… and then once the spec went to Rec, they asked, "ok, now, how do we stop our competitors from using these features, or make them pay royalties?"
# [20:38] <shepazu> they were not pleased by the answer
# [20:38] <shepazu> they were unclear on the concept
# [21:12] * Joins: karl (karlcow@128.30.54.58)
# [21:17] <Josh_Soref> heh
# [21:18] <Josh_Soref> sounds like they were a telco that didn't read the w3c terms / consult their lawyers for instructions
# [21:18] <Josh_Soref> insisting on language is how you do business in most other standards bodies
# [21:18] <Josh_Soref> (this is something i learned by joining my standards team here)
# [21:51] * Quits: smaug (chatzilla@82.181.151.161) (Ping timeout)
# [22:28] * Joins: MikeSmith_ (MikeSmith@1.112.17.209)
# [22:31] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@114.48.235.86) (Ping timeout)
# [22:31] * MikeSmith_ is now known as MikeSmith
# [22:49] * Joins: smaug (chatzilla@212.226.21.61)
# [23:00] * Joins: sicking (chatzilla@98.210.155.80)
# [23:08] * Quits: karl (karlcow@128.30.54.58) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
# [23:09] * Joins: Marcos (Adium@84.208.50.132)
# [23:09] * Quits: Marcos1 (Adium@84.208.50.132) (Ping timeout)
# [23:21] * Quits: smaug (chatzilla@212.226.21.61) (Ping timeout)
# [23:54] * Joins: karl (karlcow@128.30.54.58)
# Session Close: Fri Nov 25 00:00:00 2011

The end :)