Re: [hybi] email granularity, was: WebSockets feedback

[Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>]

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
>> Ian, do you accept that answering a specific question many weeks later, 
>> in the middle of a hundred other questions, is akin to putting the reply 
>> on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused 
>> lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'...?
> 
> That certainly hasn't been my experience in the WHATWG. On the contrary, 
> in fact; the way things have ended up working in the WHATWG is that a 
> bunch of people state their requirements and provide relevant data, then 
> in due course I wrap all the e-mails on a particular section of the spec 
> into one e-mail and go through taking into account all the arguments, 
> requirements, and data into account, making any needed changes to the 
> spec, and then anyone interested in the topic replies to the relevant 
> parts of the e-mail if they have new arguments or data to present, or to 
> clarify misunderstandings or point out any errors I made.


Ian,

that sounds like a reasonable approach for the WhatWG process,
where you are the ultimate authority as to what goes into
the document.

With the whatwg process, the feedback and contributors have to
convince you of their requirements and ideas - and once convinced
you will add them.

The IETF process is different and requires and editor to separate
their role as editor from their role as contributor.  An IETF
editor may have to add something to a document which is the
rough consensus of the WG, but which they personally as an
expert disagree with.

Thus the IETF discussions need to revolve a lot less about
what *you* think, and thus your consolidated opinions are less
valuable to the process.     Consolidating summary of consensus
and updates done as editor would be valuable, but there
should be a clear distinction between your role as editor
and your own opinions.


regards