| 14:02 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: dunno if you ever saw https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/DesignGuidelines but it seems like something you appreciate and maybe have refinements to suggest |
| 14:56 | <tantek> | MikeSmith - hopefully you appreciate it too! |
| 14:56 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: sure |
| 14:58 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: btw I've been thinking a bit lately about the concept of "permissionless innovation" that's been used a lot this year |
| 14:58 | <tantek> | MikeSmith - seems like a fairly broad term |
| 14:58 | <MikeSmith> | e.g., in the NetMundial literature |
| 14:58 | <MikeSmith> | https://www.netmundial.org/principles |
| 14:59 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: for the more specific context, see http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/tech-matters/2014/04/permissionless-innovation-openness-not-anarchy |
| 14:59 | <MikeSmith> | anyway I've been thinking about it in the more specific context of the W3C document license |
| 14:59 | <tantek> | I am skeptical about netmundial as I am about openstand |
| 15:00 | <tantek> | neither was developed according to their own principles of transparency, and openness of the process by which their principles etc. were discussed and developed |
| 15:00 | <MikeSmith> | well the W3C is aligned somewhat with both netmundial and openstand, as you know |
| 15:01 | <MikeSmith> | but anyway I find it hard to reconcile the W3C document license with that "permissionless innovation" principle |
| 15:01 | <MikeSmith> | and I would think anybody else would find it hard to reconcile |
| 15:01 | <tantek> | agreed on that point |
| 15:03 | <tantek> | I'm more annoyed with the use of openstand as a stick in the normative reference policy, and thus excuse to exclude references to WHATWG (or other community standards) documents |
| 15:03 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: yeah me too, very much so |
| 15:03 | <Ms2ger> | Is that rubys' thing? |
| 15:03 | <MikeSmith> | that tactic runs counter to the spirit of what openstand is supposed to be about |
| 15:04 | <MikeSmith> | Ms2ger: what? openstand? |
| 15:04 | <Ms2ger> | Yeah |
| 15:04 | <tantek> | MikeSmith thus I have taken the approach of questioning openstand itself |
| 15:04 | <tantek> | being inconsistent with its own principles |
| 15:05 | <tantek> | Ms2ger we don't know who is behind openstand because its development was/is not transparent, in direct contradiction with its own principles. |
| 15:05 | <tantek> | "who" meaning people, not virtual organizations |
| 15:06 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: Pointing out internal inconsistencies in openstand makes sense. But I think it's also productive to point out cases where those advocating for everybody to adhere to openstand are not adhering to it themselves. And the case of "permissionless innovation" is a case of that, I think |
| 15:06 | <tantek> | MikeSmith - yes the Netmundial thing is more interesting - there's a bit more provenance / names of people there |
| 15:07 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 15:07 | <MikeSmith> | anyway, specifically, nobody should need to ask permission to innovate by experimenting with creating a new version of particular web standard, and publishing it and attempting to get it implemented and standarizied |
| 15:07 | <tantek> | but openstand just looks like an obfuscating layer of abstraction |
| 15:07 | <tantek> | yeah - agreed on experimenting like that |
| 15:08 | <MikeSmith> | well the W3C document license discourages exactly that kind of experimentation |
| 15:08 | <tantek> | indeed |
| 15:08 | <MikeSmith> | a chilling effect, even |
| 15:08 | <tantek> | yes |
| 15:09 | <MikeSmith> | I think it would be wortwhile for the AB to consider it in those terms |
| 15:11 | <gsnedders> | "But what can we do to get such Innovators to be Members?" |
| 15:11 | <gsnedders> | YOU'RE DEVALUING OUR INVESTMENT IN W3C MEMBERSHIP FEES! |
| 15:55 | <tantek> | MikeSmith - part of the challenge is it's not just the AB, but rather the AC, or certain outspoken AC members |
| 16:00 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: sure but the AB is a level of governance beyond the AC, and has responsibility for holding the W3C accountable to its principles even in the face of face of AC members who want the W3C to do things that aren't consistent with those principles |
| 16:01 | <tantek> | the document license advocates typically trump up 'consensus' as the w3c principle that they're defending |
| 16:01 | <tantek> | against the wild wild non-consensus west of whatwg and anyone else apparently |
| 16:31 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: core principles trump consensus |
| 16:31 | <MikeSmith> | and I realize I'm preaching to the choir |
| 16:31 | <tantek> | MikeSmith, they think consensus is a core principle |
| 16:35 | <MikeSmith> | sure but anybody reasonable would agree that if a consensus emerged from the AC that conflicted with other core principles then the problem is with the AC and not other core principles |
| 16:36 | <MikeSmith> | regardless it's a moot point in the case of the document license, because no actual consensus has emerged from the AC about it |
| 16:36 | <MikeSmith> | or actually that's wrong |
| 16:36 | <MikeSmith> | the consensus that's emerged from the AC about it is that the vast majority of the AC don't feel strongly about it either way |
| 16:38 | <MikeSmith> | and so instead what's been allowed to happen is that a very small handful of vocal anti-free-license advocates in the AC have been allowed to set the position |
| 16:41 | <Ms2ger> | Now that's a first at the W3C |
| 23:50 | <Domenic> | Successssss https://streams.spec.whatwg.org/commit-snapshots/c6704b8e64623821ed70efd17a45ac5b91672397/ |