httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <>
Subject Re: W3C <-> Apache
Date Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:25:52 GMT
Hi Henrik,

>That is why I am very concerned about the recent leaks of information onto
>this mailing list that I rightfully understand have made you upset. The
>information that I have seen go by did not represent HTTP-NG in a rightful
>way. I would be happy to help in any way that I can but it requires that
>somebody from the Apache group signs up to participate.

You need to be clear on the difference between an opinion and a leak.
W3C doesn't want any of the work products to be published until they
have at least a minimum of approval from members.  I didn't include
any of those products in my messages, and was careful to describe my
opinion of what the HTTP-NG PDG is doing rather than including any of the
actual specs/code that you guys have produced so far.  That is no different
than what has already been published by the W3C.  I was even reticent to
reveal that Daniel had done some coding work with the Apache/ILU stuff,
but that represents his "player ID card" in a group where developers get
more respect than non-developers, and he'll need that card to support
any comments he has on the 2.0 redesign.

As for "did not represent HTTP-NG in a rightful way", I can only say that
my summary was as close to accurate as possible without revealing any of
the technical details.  [Keep in mind that I've spent most of the past
six months researching the advantages/disadvantages of distributed object
systems versus state representation systems (HTTP), so my summary is
probably a lot more accurate than your own documents.] To do better,
you will have to make the technical details public so that they can be
considered independent of other people's opinion.

The general problem is that "The Apache Group" operates by a principle
of public disclosure of every technical discussion and decision ever made.
That is a polar opposite to the notion of a member-supported consortium
where the consortium activities are performed in secret.  Ben's problem
is with how W3C operates, and that opinion is shared by most free software
developers.  So, while I think you've done a pretty good job in inviting
experts to join, it is still not an open process.  That doesn't mean it
needs to be an open process (design by committee is not fun), but you
will have to expect that people outside the process will treat it as
suspicious, at least until you give them enough clues to understand
what it is you are actually working on.



View raw message