Re: [hybi] Proposed Charter for HyBi WG (rev.3)

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 20:59 30-10-2009, Ian Hickson wrote:
>The WHATWG is happy to work with anyone. I don't understand what you mean
>by "liason with" juxtaposed by "take on prime responsibility", though. In
>what sense is it a liason if the other group no longer has responsibility?
>Surely a joint effort implies joint responsibility.

Editorial comment:  That should have been "the working group will 
liaise with the ...".

Joint responsibility increases the chances of failure as two working 
groups do not work the same way.

>It should be noted that the WHATWG's work is based on technical merit and
>not on consensus. If even just one person raises a valid technical issue
>in the WHATWG, they cannot be overridden by the rest of the group having
>complete agreement that they should just ignore the technical issue. There
>is also a firm philosophy that the specs match interoperable deployed
>implementations, and that the specs not leave things undefined.

The IETF process is based on consensus.  An IETF Working Group cannot 
change that.  The philosophical questions can be addressed in the 
charter if the group reaches a consensus about that.

My comments are as an individual.  The proposed WG will be part of 
the IETF.  It is not the IETF.  The entire IETF community will be 
asked to comment on the proposal submitted for publication.  The IETF 
does not constrain the solution.  It is up to the IETF participants 
to determine what problem will be solved and how it will be 
solved.  There's the BoF and this mailing to discuss about all that 
and come up with a proposed charter.  People from the W3C WebApps and 
WHATWG are not excluded.  Ask them to join this mailing list and participate.

Regards,
-sm