Complete lack of interest in or solicitation of the perspectives, plans, or design input of other vendors (nevermind the wider Web community).
-
-
Replying to @fantasai @yoavweiss
How does requesting an early design review from TAG not constitute exactly that?
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @RickByers @yoavweiss
1. The TAG is overloaded, and only has one engineer from each vendor. It's an important review, but doesn't have the same broadness of participation or specialization as proposing things through more specific standardization channels.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
2. The ITI template (afaik) is intended for proving/indexing that discussion, not starting it. Because it makes sense to get initial design review and other key input as to whether or not this is a good idea *before* you start implementing it.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
If the ITI template is intended to *start* soliciting input, you may want to seriously redesign it, because as mentioned elsewhere in the thread it's interpreted by everyone else as the title says: an intent to implement the thing described. Not as a request for comments.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Follow-up on the "the TAG is overloaded" point... if problems with a proposal can be caught by people other than the TAG before it gets to the TAG, that helps the TAG do its job better by improving its throughput and letting it focus on what other groups can't provide.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @fantasai @RickByers
Sure. And I don't think that the TAG review issues are reserved for TAG members. But because the TAG is overloaded, review latency can be high. So starting it early gives everyone enough time to look at it before the folks pushing the feature think it should actually ship
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I also don't understand the core argument here; is it *bad* to be seeking broad feedback? Is it bad to be building implementations to learn from and iterate on? Which part of this is mis-ordered?
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @yoavweiss and
And
@fantasai, understand that folks in this thread are Blink API OWNERS; it's our (part time) job to push back on folks who try to send an I2S that doesn't demonstrate real and thoughtful iteration and solicitation of feedback. Can reach out *directly* when that isn't happening1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @yoavweiss and
With my
TL hat on, we consciously pay a heavy tax over and above what you're accusing us of *specifically because we spend time soliciting and integrating the feedback some claim we're not asking for*.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
I could make my life, and the life of my team, much much easier if we did what you're accusing. But we don't. Our process is audaciously public and uncomfortably raw specifically to enable you to engage and collaborate should you care about the feature or space.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @yoavweiss and
Is there any other engine project that takes developer feedback from something like Origin Trials? That floats APIs *and then doesn't ship them* for lack of feedback or interest? That explicitly invokes the TAG or forces their team to work in public via incubation?
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes - 15 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.