[hybi] Process, was: Technical feedback. was: Process!

[Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>]

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> What I'm really interested in here is the problems themselves, not what form the damage
> will take. You did list some.
> That's great. It would be good to list any others, and to
> work on solutions to the ones identified.

Which brings us back to process.

It's really great that you've taken an interested in the issues that are being raised on
this list and have engaged in discussion about them.

But we've been here before.  They've all been raised and discussed in some detail here
and many ideas and solutions have been proposed.

All have been rejected.   Not only that, the problems themselves have been rejected
and no solution at all has been offered.

Hence my strong words against the WHATWG process.  It has disenfranchised a
significant part of the internet community and is not addressing the concerns
that are being raised.

Note that I'm not advocated we use the IETF process because I'm deluded that I
can get my own way.   If I had my own way, the IETF would be considering something
like BWTP rather than websocket... but that was hummed down and I accept that.
So I now wish to positively engage with websocket (hence Jetty now supports it,
cometd will soon support it and I've put BWTP aside).    However, accepted the
will of the community is an entirely different thing to accepting the will
of the WHATWG editor.

I repeat my suggestion that the WHATWG continue to edit the current document
to produce an interoperable and deployed 1.0, while the IETF begins the process
to produce a new document describing a 1.1 version of the protocol.

regards