[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Public WebGL] Universal Shading Language Governance
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Benoit Jacob <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
But right now is a difficult time to argue for that: after the rants posted on this list and on public-fx over the past few days, it is harder than usual to argue for public mailing lists as places for getting work done.
There's no work done here in the first place, at all. Zip, zilch, nada. We have colorful exchanges and throw around ideas, but far as "work" goes, the height is if any of us proposes an extension, which happens about once or twice a year. That's not work. I don't know where you get your "work" done, but it's not here, not before any rants, not a year ago, not two years ago, and not now.
But this isn't about "getting work done", you've got your channels to do that. This is about transparency, not work. And transparency, quite frankly, is abysmal.
A look at the archives of this mailing list will show you that work does get done here.
I don't know where you got the opposite impression from.
This public_webgl mailing list is the central communication channel of this Working Group. Earlier this year, on the private list, we agreed on an informal rule that we should use it except when we have a specific reason to use a private channel, and that even then, any private spec decision must at least be reported on public_webgl. I believe that the above public archive links show that we have done a reasonably good job at that. You are always welcome to point out any specific decision for which you believe that no appropriate public discussion, or explanation for private-ness, happened on this list.