Re: [hybi] Process! was: [whatwg] HttpOnly cookie for WebSocket?

[Maciej Stachowiak <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 29, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
>> If there are technical points of feedback that are not properly addressed, 
>> then let's have the conversation about those technical issues ASAP, and not
>> mix it up with meta-level process issues.
> 
> There have been many attempts by server side developers to express their
> concerns regarding websocket.    As Jamie pointed out on elsewhere on
> this thread, all substantive suggestions were met with "no, I don't agree,
> your idea will no be considered for WebSocket".
> 
> More importantly than accepting specific ideas,  the actual concerns have
> have not been accept or addressed.  We've simply been told that we
> should not be concerned about the things we are concerned about.

Well I hope the chairs of the HyBi WG work out a process for suitably addressing these kinds of issues. I'm not entirely clear on what the concerns actually are, but perhaps we can try working through one or two of them as a test case for collaboration.

By the way, I was pleased to see your "Technical feedback" subthread forked from this thread. It's a lot easier to get down to business on concrete issues. I will read over it and comment.

> So it is these technical frustrations that are driving the current
> discussion about process.    However, even if Websocket was the
> best protocol ever created, I still do not think that a closed
> consortium representing only a segment of the industry should
> be the author, editor and implementers of a new internet protocol
> that will affect all of the industry.

I think you are overestimating how much of a unitary entity the WHATWG is. The browser vendors seeking to implement WebSocket have chosen to do so relatively independently, and we send our feedback publicly where it gets considered. It's not like implementing engineers ask the WHATWG Steering Committee to give Ian orders on what to put on the spec. Furthermore, browser implementors do not have some kind of vendetta against server-side developers. We want to work with you guys, in fact, that is the whole point of having web/internet specifications.

That being said, I think debating the organizational structure of the WHATWG is not really helpful. For the HyBi WG, what we need is a process that satisfies IETF requirements. I think it is possible, and probably even desirable, to set that up in a way that allows alignment and continued collaboration with what is happening at the WHATG. I also think it is up to the chairs of this WG to work out the process details. As I've said before, I would be delighted to advise, being in a very similar position. But I would rather not get into it too much on the list.

Regards,
Maciej