On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 23/10/2012, at 10:16 AM, Ian Hickson <ian(_at_)hixie(_dot_)ch> wrote:
I can't speak for Anne, but having experienced the IETF via the hybi
work, my own opinion is that the main reason I wouldn't work with the
IETF is that the community these days values consensus over technical
value and running code, and the culture in the IETF doesn't value the
kind of specification style that IMHO leads to better interop. For
example, this very thraed -- we're having to argue to convince people
that defining error handling is even a valuable thing to do.
Wait - who's making that argument?
Me.
References, please.
This very thread is evidence enough, but see also the complete disinterest
in fixing the URL specs, or the reaction abarth got from MIME sniffing, or
the disaster that was hybi, or this complete disinterest in fixing the
problem with encodings:
http://mail.apps.ietf.org/ietf/charsets/threads.html#01830
http://mail.apps.ietf.org/ietf/charsets/threads.html#02027
http://mail.apps.ietf.org/ietf/charsets/threads.html#02034
...or the way IANA registrations for MIME types get handled, or HTTP bis'
reaction to browser feedback, or the way process is put ahead of progress
(there's no way to fix an RFC once it's published, even errata are often
rejected), or the lack of any testing culture...
I understand that you disagree that most of those were a problem. But the
original question was "why don't you work at IETF", and that's the answer.
It may be that you conclude that it's a good thing, therefore, that I and
others don't work at the IETF, but in that case you shouldn't complain
when we go and do stuff outside the IETF.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'