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

[Maciej Stachowiak <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 29, 2010, at 5:39 AM, Greg Wilkins wrote:

> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>>> Ian, could you please explain how exactly *you* imagine such a 
>>> cooperation should work, if not e.g. by cross-posting?
>> 
>> The same way it works with the HTML5 specification and the various Web 
>> Apps specifications....
> 
> 
> Ian,
> 
> the problem with this approach is that an internet protocol
> is out of scope of for the WHATWG charter and the WHATWG
> process is entirely inappropriate for forging a consensus
> across all the interested parties.

As one of the Chairs of the W3C HTML Working Group, I have had much opportunity to work through the issues of coordinating joint development with the WHATWG. It is definitely true that there have been difficulties at times, due to the different processes and distinct (though overlapping) communities. And HTML5 is probably the biggest spec going through this joint development process, with the most different points of controversy. However, I believe we have now worked out a process that meets W3C consensus requirements without forking from the WHATWG copy of the spec. 

In the process we have developed, it is not the case that a single individual has the final word. Nor is it the case that a committee of 9 browser representatives has the final word. We have is a well-defined process to report and track feedback, we let the editor decide on the initial disposition of issues based on discussion, and we have a process for resolving disputes if we cannot come to agreement informally. This process seems to be working both for large-scale editorial changes (such as factoring parts of the specification into wholly separate specs) and for changes in normative requirements.

I think the Chair(s) of HyBi Working Group should figure out whether coordination is a goal, and if so what process can satisfy IETF requirements even while working with an editor who feels responsibility to a second standards organization. Since this is something I have had to deal with myself, I'd be glad to advise the HyBi Chairs (offline) on this topic.

With this in mind, could we leave further consideration of the process issues to the HyBi Chairs? It is ultimately their responsibility to work this out, and I fear this thread may be more distracting than helpful.

Regards,
Maciej