Re: [hybi] Issue tracker

[Scott Ferguson <[e-mail]>]

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>   
> It's actually very easy to determine their opinion; we can just ask them, 
> or follow their discussions elsewhere. For example, I regularly partake in 
> discussions about HTML5 on Reddit, on IRC, and in other forums, even 
> though many people there aren't in the HTML working group. Indeed, using 
> Google alerts and Backtype alerts one is able to get a very good sense of 
> where people outside the working group stand.
>
> However, while I obviously will continue to look at those sources of 
> input, I understand that we'd want to ignore this feedback when 
> determining "consensus", if we're going to use a consensus-based approach.
>
>   
We have representatives from at least 3 HTTP browser implementors here, 
at least 2 HTTP server implementors, and others with extensive 
networking experience, and the IETF is the proper venue for internet 
protocol specifications.

It's clear that you're planning to ignore the IETF working group in 
favor of selected voices in the HTML community who agree with you, but 
lets at least be honest about that intent, instead of pretending 
confusion over the concept of consensus. It's always possible to shop 
around to find people who agree with you, especially if you ask people 
with with the wrong expertise.
>   
>>> Should consensus be considered more important than technical 
>>> correctness and interoperability with implementations, or should 
>>> making the spec technically sound and making the spec match reality be 
>>> considered more important than consensus?
>>>       
>> it is quite unlikely that the consensus does not match a solution that 
>> is technically correct and interoperable with implementations.
>>     

Correct.  However, since you've also selected an editor who's opposed to 
the IETF entirely (opposing to conforming  the HTTP spec when using the 
HTTP port), there's only a slim chance that the specification will 
reflect the consensus.
>
> I wish I could share your optimism.
>   

Correct. It's clear the spec will not reflect the consensus.

-- Scott