Simon Willison’s Weblog

1) The W3C process[1] (a very readable document) is based on consensus. When consensus breaks down, issues are usually resolved using a straw poll of participants, then a formal vote by member company/invited expert. Finally if someone still objects they may register a minority opinion, or Formal Objection and this is taken to arbitration within the Team. Ultimately it's the Director gets to decide, usually after a long process of deliberation. Of course, Larry's questions were a very slow ball, asking how closely the HTML 5 WG are following the W3C process and keeping within their charter.
2) The Member only list is for administrative and not technical issues, under their charter, and is typically used to exchange phone numbers and access to buildings for meetings, and questions on procedure, such as IP which for all sorts of reasons can't be made public, but with which other members may be able to help. This makes less sense for HTML5, a large group which is acting in a very public manor, but is useful for other, smaller Working Groups, especially where bringing them to the same table has been an effort. Formal objections are made in public as a part of the process. Stuff happens behind closed doors and in corridors, that's life, but eventually to have an effect on the Working Group it'll has to be made public.
3) Only a member of the Working Group, and it's obviously helps if you team up with other participants when you make your petition.
4) Not that I'm aware of, but rechartering is a negotiation between the W3C Team and the participants, and happens all the time, especially to extend deadlines when a Working Group is running late.
5), 6) others are probably best placed to answer, find the answers in the public mailing lists, but the charter is public[2]
[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html

Paul Downey - 16th February 2010 10:11 - #

The W3C really need to provide clearer communication of their activities. For a consortium supposedly acting in the best interests of the web (possibly the most open and accessible communication medium known to man) they have a dreadful public image, one of bureaucracy, conflicts of interest, infighting and petty squabbles. It also doesn't help that you have to PAY to join — anywhere between $5700 and $57000, depending on your personal or corporate income.

I found these two sources particularly useful:

1. This article on O'Reilly — lots of good stuff in the comments: http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2010/02/the-widening- html5-chasm.html#comment-2335685

2. The Outsider's Guide to the W3C — it's old, but given the creaking pace the W3C seems to move at is probably still relevant: http://www.simonstl.com/articles/civilw3c.htm

Paul Carvill - 16th February 2010 10:22 - #

1, 3: Some background reading; 2: w3c-archive is Member-only.

ndg - 16th February 2010 10:30 - #

This comment has several relevant links.

"blocked" means "we won't approve the FPWDs until the FO is resolved" (the first public working drafts of some documents, of which the Microdata and 2d-context ones used to be part of the 'main' HTML5 document).

Concerns about the inclusion of the 2d canvas context were resolved in 2007, saying the HTML WG accepts the requirement to specify that functionality and that it doesn't need changes to the charter. The W3C Team seem content with that, but Larry Masinter disagrees ("it is out of scope for the current charter. [...] I think it would be fine to update the charter to include 2D Context as actually within scope if that's what the working group proposes and the Director and AC agree.")

Philip Taylor - 16th February 2010 10:55 - #

4. It was suggested by Manu Sporny that re-chartering was a way around the impasse http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/20 10Feb/0009.html

But that would cause a huge delay accroding to Maciej Stachowiak: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/20 10Feb/0010.html

adrinux - 16th February 2010 11:00 - #

5. They were resolved 2 years ago according to:
Ann van Kesteren:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/20 10Feb/0003.html

Sam Ruby: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/20 10Feb/0005.html

adrinux - 16th February 2010 11:08 - #

Some of the discussion around this is on public lists at least. See the thread starting at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/20 10Feb/0002.html

4) from that thread it looks like the idea of rechartering has been raised, but the WG will apparently need to be rechartered in about a year anyway and from my reading it seems like most members would prefer to al least wait until then

5) again, from the public thread, it seems to be a procedural issue rather than a complaint about the inclusion of canvas (a.k.a. immediate mode graphics). There is some debate about the original scope of the WG and whether it is possible to alter that scope without rechartering.

Also, note that this issue/FO is not just about canvas, it's also concerned with the inclusion of RDFa and micro-formats, neither of which were arguable in the WG scope.

Ian Phillips - 16th February 2010 12:16 - #

Who gets to be on that list in the first place?

As far as HTML WG participants go, the people who are listed as "(public) Invited Expert" can be expected not to be authorized to view the archives and the other participants (including "W3C Invited Experts") can be expected to be authorized to view the archives.

Henri Sivonen - 16th February 2010 14:02 - #

Just a correction: ANYONE can lodge a Formal Objection; you don't have to be a WG Member or a W3C Member to do so.

As per the process: "In the W3C process, an individual may register a Formal Objection to a decision." Note "individual."

Mark Nottingham - 16th February 2010 23:56 - #

I'm a nobody here. A fascinated nobody, but a nobody.

"1) The W3C process[1] (a very readable document) is based on consensus. When consensus breaks down, issues are usually resolved using a straw poll of participants, then a formal vote by member company/invited expert. Finally if someone still objects they may register a minority opinion, or Formal Objection and this is taken to arbitration within the Team. Ultimately it's the Director gets to decide, usually after a long process of deliberation. Of course, Larry's questions were a very slow ball, asking how closely the HTML 5 WG are following the W3C process and keeping within their charter."

Wow.

So an "individual" - pointed out in a later comment here - who has:

(1) Obviously not agrred with the consensus,

(2) Not won a straw poll,

(3) Lost a formal vote, and,

(4) Doesn't register what - to me at least - is an OBVIOUS minority opinion....

Can still raise a "Formal Objection" that is taken to arbitration?

At what point does this curtail any sort of progress?

I'm not just speaking about the current matter at hand. I'm speaking about realities of moving forward. It sounds to me like the "rights of the few" are heavily outweighing the "benefits of the many".

I'm well aware of history here. And I can appreciate what the "process" - apparently a very readable document - is trying to accomplish. But - my God! When was HTML4 adopted? (Even kinda-sorta.)

Just a question from a fascinated outsider who is greatful I'm not making my living trying to do web programming anymore.

Dave D - 17th February 2010 01:52 - #

1) 3) Anyone can file a Formal Objection:<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051 014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews>.

The Chairs initially thought that Larry Masinter had raised a Formal Objection:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/20 10Feb/0002.html >
<http://www.w3.org/2010/02/11-html-wg-minutes.html# item07 >.

Larry clarified did *not* raise a Formal Objection: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/20 10Feb/0365.html >.

The W3C Process does allow another avenue of appeal besides "Formal Objection", namely "Appeal of a Chair's Decision": <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policie s.html#WGAppeals >. These appeals are made via the Team Contact rather than via the Working Group Chairs.

Maciej Stachowiak - 17th February 2010 04:17 - #

Anyone can raise a FO, but TimBL doesn't have to agree with them; generally, they need to be well-reasoned and documented, with some demonstration of an attempt to work through "normal" channels, for it to get much consideration, AIUI.

See language elsewhere in the Process doc about how when a FO is raised can affect how much weight it has (IIRC).

Mark Nottingham - 17th February 2010 05:35 - #

To understand the W3C, I highly recommend reading this article by David Baron (from 2006).

Henri Sivonen - 17th February 2010 08:04 - #

Larry Masinter has not filed a Formal Objection as defined by the process, according to him:
http://twitter.com/masinter/status/9224151658

Mark Morgan - 17th February 2010 08:07 - #