[foaf-protocols] W3C WebID review
melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Sat Aug 21 07:42:39 CEST 2010
On 20 August 2010 21:41, Doug Schepers <schepers at w3.org> wrote:
> Hi, Henry-
> Henry Story wrote (on 8/20/10 6:24 AM):
> > not sure what all the fuss is about.
> > (But Doug, please don't feel obliged to read through this)
> See, you say that... but then you make misleading statements I feel
> obliged to correct. Sigh.
> > Well what is clear is that tensions are high in the W3C about WebID.
> > I tell the list something and people feel everything is about to
> > crumble over there.
> (Okay, Henry, just so you know: alarmist statements like this is what
> all the fuss is about.)
> No, tensions are not high about WebID at W3C. It's barely on anyone's
> radar at all. That's what we're trying to change.
> >> Point #1: Openness
> >> As far as openness, you are no stranger to W3C and I'm surprised
> >> that you insinuate that the process is going to be anything but
> >> open.
> > That is a misunderstanding. Though in an odd way this whole email
> > thread would seem to suggest that this is a bit of a problem, since I
> > was told not to tell the list about a possible meeting.
> No, you weren't. Stop spreading FUD. You were asked not to invite
> other people, which you did anyway. You explicitly brought me in on
> this thread by name.
> > Same here :-) Though we don't have a barrier to entry at all, which
> > is more in the IETF mould I suppose, and creates its own types of
> > issues.
> The only barrier to entry in participating in the W3C mailing lists is
> an agreement to allow your emails to be archived, and if you participate
> as a full member of a WG, to grant Royalty-Free license agreement for
> the spec.
> >> Other bugs and comments aren't being tracked at all.
> > We have a public wiki, and there is a section bugs and issues there.
> > It is not very formal that is true. And it is true that we have very
> > little process. But we did build a large enough community without
> > process. The web itself by the way emerged without the existence of
> > the W3C. Process was added later.
> To be clear, most groups at W3C try to use process as little as
> possible, other than the formal review process of progressively maturing
> documents (the "Recommendation Track"). We only need process when there
> is conflict, or ambiguity about licensing (which is also tied into the
> Rec Track). But as you add stakeholders, more process is needed, it
> seems, to resolve small and large conflicts.
> As a side note, most W3C Working Groups start off very loose and easy,
> with rapid iterations of specs and ideas and very little process, and as
> those specs mature, and get wider attention, more process comes into
> play. So, really, it's not very different from these sorts of
> community-organized efforts (though there is a formal step at the outset
> to decide amongst the W3C Team and Membership if there is value in
> starting the work in the first place, for resource allocation purposed).
> > Don't you see the slight weirdness of the situation here? I tell the
> > group about a meeting at the W3C, then get told off for saying so and
> > wasting people's time, then I suggest we have a process, then people
> > write huge emails about how W3C process is great and open and how we
> > have no process, and ???
> I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing that you are light on
> process. That seems very natural to me, for the beginning stage of a
> But again, it was not about you telling this community about the
> meeting, it was the *way* you told this community. I understand that
> you feel put upon, and maybe a little slighted; I apologize if I came
> off as heavy-handed. I was trying to put something lightweight and
> simple together, and it's snowballed into much more of a time
> commitment; I think you can sympathize why I'm also feeling put upon.
> You might say that I don't have to respond to these emails... except,
> unfortunately, that's not the reality of the situation. If I hadn't
> responded, suddenly it's on some public list somewhere that W3C is
> holding "secret meetings" and is refusing to talk to the community and
> is trying to take over WebID or is ignoring WebID or whatever. It's the
> whole "have you stopped beating your wife" conundrum; it costs you very
> little to leave a wrong impression (whether you mean to or not), and
> costs me much more to address the issue. And then, suddenly, I'm seen
> as speaking for the W3C as a whole, which is also the wrong idea. You
> see my dilemma?
> > Furthermore it was I who went to the W3C a few months ago to suggest
> > that WebID be taken on by the W3C. One issues was if we had
> > implementations. Well we do, and we would not have had any had we
> > started off with the process.
> > So there is a place for process, but usually it is not in the
> > birthing stages of an idea. Just imagine me going to the W3C with
> > WebID and no implementation and asking them to standardise it. Do you
> > think we would have even had a hearing?
> I could go into detail about what makes an idea more or less likely to
> be taken up by W3C, but that would be a long conversations. The short
> version is: people, and momentum.
> Individuals are what make or break a technology. Without the right
> person at the right time applying just the right amount of time and
> focus on something, it will almost certainly peter out and fade away.
> Obviously, it takes many such individuals, each with their role. As
> Lucille Ball said, "If you want something done, ask a busy person to do
> it." You can't just go to W3C, tell one person an idea, and expect it
> to be immediately taken up; you have to find the right person to
> overcome the natural momentum of other things that are being done.
> Which leads to momentum. W3C is more likely to pick up work that
> already has a spec and/or implementations, because it's more likely to
> have a successful outcome; and in fact, W3C is more likely to pick up
> work that has competing, conflicting implementations, because there's
> more need for standardization. It's also more likely to pick up work
> that large companies are behind, even if there's only one company doing
> it; on the surface, that may seem unfair, and may seem like favoritism
> toward large companies, but in fact, that's not the motivation... the
> metric is that if some idea has already been through the ringer at a
> large company, it's already been vetted by a fairly sizeable, critical
> audience, and that the company has decided to put resources behind it,
> so there is a higher chance of success... and a larger risk to the
> community if that company doesn't get all the details right, because
> large installation bases tend to spread mistake irrevocably. Obviously,
> that heuristic doesn't always work (big companies can also have stinker
> ideas, or good ideas spoiled by overthought, just like the rest of us),
> so we need people to assess the soundness of the idea and the benefits
> of standardizing it. That's where it comes back to individuals.
> Where do community projects like this come into it that dynamic?
> Clearly, the larger and more cohesive the community, the greater the
> momentum. But without a central driving force, there's also a wider
> spread of the odds. A dedicated individual can often have greater
> impact, because they are often working out of passion, not just because
> they are paid to (frequently, they aren't paid at all); they might make
> a really great implementation that pushes the idea over the top, and
> small communities have a "street cred" that large companies usually
> can't evoke; so, a good idea might spread more readily. But in the long
> haul, or without those initial firebrands, the project might sizzle out,
> and lose its momentum. From the W3C perspective, probably the optimal
> time to get involved (if we do so at all) is just before the peak of the
> momentum, just before the project really makes it (or fails); that's
> where W3C can help boost the momentum to reach critical mass, and also
> to help ensure that the efforts stay unified and interoperable.
> (Yes, that was the short version.)
> > There was no invitation. I told people this was probably a private
> > meeting and that the person to make such a decision was Doug. Perhaps
> > indeed I could have gone the other way and first asked Doug.
> The outcome of that seems obvious to me. Was it not predictable to you?
> > Did Doug get a lot of emails? Sorry. It is true we are a vibrant
> > community here... I'll be careful next time.
> See above. It's not how many emails I got, it how much I had to work to
> correct mistaken impressions.
> > - We worked in public in order to discover the best way to create
> > privacy. - The W3C group, a public standards body of the highest
> > quality, requires privacy to reduce the workload of its members. - In
> > the shadows unexpressed issues lurk - for fear of making them
> > public?
> It's not clear to me what you're saying here, but it sounds very scary.
> For what it's worth, W3C used to work more privately, but over the past
> few years, it's become much more public in how it conducts its technical
> work; that may *seem* like it increases the workload, but I would argue
> that it offsets the workload from the future to the present, thus
> improving the leverage. Bad implementations because of mistakes in
> specs cost the community a disproportionate amount of work, and
> ultimately force the groups who've produced successful (but flawed)
> specs to make a lot of difficult errata and corrections (when the
> mistake can be corrected at all), so addressing potential mistakes
> earlier in the standards process, with wide community review, actually
> saves everyone time... even the working group. (Note: it's still
> frustrating as hell for the WG, don't get me wrong.)
> Now, aren't you sorry you brought me into this? I've taken your nice
> clean technical discussions and muddied them with icky standards gunk
> (believe me, it doesn't come off in the wash), and I'd guess to no-one's
> benefit. :)
Hi Doug, thanks for taking the time to put across, your point of view. I'm
sure it was not the intention of anyone on this list to put you, or anyone
at the W3C, in an uncomfortable position. I for one have taken on board
your comments. As a group, we can certainly aim to be more thoughtful in
We hope you will be pleasantly surprised at how well aligned the WebID
Protocol is, to both Web Architecture, and to the broader W3C vision.
We'll continue to try and make WebID the best protocol it can be, in order
to help enable the Web to continue its success, in a way that is accessible
to the broadest possible demographic.
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the foaf-protocols