Re: [hybi] updated Charter proposal (WebSocket)

[Maciej Stachowiak <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 26, 2009, at 4:52 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>  
>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> However, I don't think the charter should mandate the WebSocket  
>>> protocol
>>> as the outcome.
>>>
>>> The protocol should be able to be selected on it's own merits - and
>>> that includes the effort that many have put towards it already.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Asking WGs to run beauty contests typically turns out to be
>> problematic.  I think we get better success at asking whether it's
>> appropriate to form a WG around a specific proposal, and that doesn't
>> exclude other WGs and other proposals.  It's really the WG formation
>> process that lets the entire IETF decide if a WG working on the
>> WebSocket protocol is the right thing to do.   That process does
>> address the merits, and it avoids the "there can be only one"  
>> fallacy.
>
> OK if that's the process, then that's the process.
>
> However, the authors of the protocol have so far been very
> resistant to change (not even using BNF or allocating a
> type byte for mime-encoded content).
>
> So will the WG have the ability to come up with it's own
> draft for a websocket protocol - or will all it be able
> to do is huff and puff and hope to convince the whatwg?

I would expect the standard for deciding the contents of an eventual  
RFC will be "rough consensus and running code".

Regards,
Maciej