3 ms·

Mark Pilgrim makes a good point that I wonder about (http://twitter.com/diveintomark/status/9013587732 http://twitter.com/diveintomark/status/9013587732): why a

Mark Pilgrim makes a good point that I wonder about (http://twitter.com/diveintomark/status/9013587732 http://twitter.com/diveintomark/status/9013587732): why are there member-only lists at all? That is, HTML is an open standard. I had no idea there were secret holds. Was this a known part of the process? Is it done often? Are there any precedents?

seldo 17y ago
It has been a long time since I was involved in the W3C, but I can tell you that the public lists are plagued with clueless people who jump onto, e.g., the XHTML 2.0 standards definition list and ask for help with converting their BMPs into GIFs for their homepage. Even without those, there are legions of self-important blowhards who will spend weeks arguing whether "<section>" is the semantically best name for a tag. W3C is not terribly quick at getting things done at the best of times, but the public lists are even more so. All that said, I've never heard of a "hold" before, but then I was only ever on the public lists.
- mrduncan 17y ago
  I agree that allowing users to post to the lists might be harmful in some cases, but I can't think of a good reason why these lists aren't readable by the public.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
carson 17y ago
It is probably there to allow the members to talk freely about internal projects that they don't want to have exposed externally before they are ready.
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
I'm fairly certain that Apple communicated that it wouldn't implement Theora in private.
- othermaciej 17y ago
  We gave a whole lot of feedback on our Theora concerns in public: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0078.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0078... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0093.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0093... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0124.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0124...
- Hixie 17y ago
  All of Apple's objections were public. (Also, Mozilla's objections to H.264, Google's opinion, Opera's position, Nokia's position, etc. They were all public.) There _have_ been some private discussions between various people interested in solving the codec problem, but they have yet to bear useful fruit and the spec was unaffected by them. All the objections that affected the spec were public from the get-go.
imd 17y ago
Looks like he explains his objection at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0360.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0360... and says it's not a "formal complaint" at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0365.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0365...
- telemachos 17y ago
  Yup, thanks. Someone quickly responded that he had wished to be formal earlier (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002...): So I object to the chairs' decision that these documents are in scope. I suppose a formal objection is decided by the domain lead, or appealed to the Director, and the team contact can help with this process? it's not in the special HTML-WG-only process document how this group goes about appealing decisions which the chairs seem to have made. If I need to use the word "formally" in there somewhere, or if there's some "Formal Appeal Change Proposal" form I'm supposed to fill in, recapitulating all of the email arguments made to date, suggesting the documents "change" by disappearing, and written in iambic hexameter, please let me know. That quickly devolves into some discussion of possible uses of the word 'formal', the minutes of a phone conference, other emails, typos, and also some serious conversation about whether or not the private lists should be used this way. Tab Atkins Jr. wrote this: I would like to register my strong disapproval of this entire affair. This was an abuse of the member-only lists. Any Objection, potential or not, should _always_ take place on the public list. I am disappointed in the author of the private emails for their actions. It really all is surprisingly like the senate, which to my mind is a shame. Having said that, maybe there's some inevitable thing that happens when this many people, much money, etc. are involved.

seldo 17y ago

It has been a long time since I was involved in the W3C, but I can tell you that the public lists are plagued with clueless people who jump onto, e.g., the XHTML 2.0 standards definition list and ask for help with converting their BMPs into GIFs for their homepage. Even without those, there are legions of self-important blowhards who will spend weeks arguing whether "<section>" is the semantically best name for a tag. W3C is not terribly quick at getting things done at the best of times, but the public lists are even more so. All that said, I've never heard of a "hold" before, but then I was only ever on the public lists.

mrduncan 17y ago
I agree that allowing users to post to the lists might be harmful in some cases, but I can't think of a good reason why these lists aren't readable by the public.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

carson 17y ago

It is probably there to allow the members to talk freely about internal projects that they don't want to have exposed externally before they are ready.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

I'm fairly certain that Apple communicated that it wouldn't implement Theora in private.

othermaciej 17y ago
We gave a whole lot of feedback on our Theora concerns in public: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0078.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0078... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0093.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0093... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0124.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0124...
Hixie 17y ago
All of Apple's objections were public. (Also, Mozilla's objections to H.264, Google's opinion, Opera's position, Nokia's position, etc. They were all public.) There _have_ been some private discussions between various people interested in solving the codec problem, but they have yet to bear useful fruit and the spec was unaffected by them. All the objections that affected the spec were public from the get-go.

imd 17y ago

Looks like he explains his objection at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0360.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0360... and says it's not a "formal complaint" at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0365.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0365...

telemachos 17y ago
Yup, thanks. Someone quickly responded that he had wished to be formal earlier (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002...): So I object to the chairs' decision that these documents are in scope. I suppose a formal objection is decided by the domain lead, or appealed to the Director, and the team contact can help with this process? it's not in the special HTML-WG-only process document how this group goes about appealing decisions which the chairs seem to have made. If I need to use the word "formally" in there somewhere, or if there's some "Formal Appeal Change Proposal" form I'm supposed to fill in, recapitulating all of the email arguments made to date, suggesting the documents "change" by disappearing, and written in iambic hexameter, please let me know. That quickly devolves into some discussion of possible uses of the word 'formal', the minutes of a phone conference, other emails, typos, and also some serious conversation about whether or not the private lists should be used this way. Tab Atkins Jr. wrote this: I would like to register my strong disapproval of this entire affair. This was an abuse of the member-only lists. Any Objection, potential or not, should _always_ take place on the public list. I am disappointed in the author of the private emails for their actions. It really all is surprisingly like the senate, which to my mind is a shame. Having said that, maybe there's some inevitable thing that happens when this many people, much money, etc. are involved.