Our process is documented here: https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features … It *doesn't* gate things on the idea that things have to be standards to be worth adding, but it is more careful in every way about adding risky (new) features than any competing project's process -- *which we all do*.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @ChrisFerdinandi and
If nobody leads, we never go forward. Chromium imposes a high structural tax on leadership to ensure community feedback is at the center of the process, and that risks are low. The WebVR/XR saga show this process at work.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @ChrisFerdinandi and
There was consensus in the WG circa '17 that the then-current spec would need to be overhauled and wasn't going to be the thing to standardise. Other vendors shipped it anyway!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @ChrisFerdinandi and
Turned out the group was right. Today's WebXR specs are very different. Chrome prevented "premature compatibility" about a thing which was the wrong design through Origin Trials: https://github.com/GoogleChrome/OriginTrials/blob/gh-pages/developer-guide.md …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @hashseed and
I appreciate the history and all that Google has done here. I don’t like Chrome’s outsized influence on the platform as a corporate sponsored pseudo-monopoly.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChrisFerdinandi @hashseed and
Cool. Might perhaps then be more effective to request others invest reasonable amounts (which they *absolutely can*) and, perhaps, stop trolling the folks who are struggling to be careful about leadership in the absence of collaboration created by their lack of investment?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @hashseed and
I’m not trolling. I’m a big fan of your work, Alex. But pushing the idea that “maybe a monoculture is good” when you work at a massive surveillance capitalism employer is dangerous, irrespective of the great work you personally do.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChrisFerdinandi @hashseed and
I'm asking the community to honestly interrogate its priors. *Why* was monoculture bad? I can think of many reasons, but until we dispassionately investigate, we get hung up on the politics and can't see the situation clearly enough to change it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @hashseed and
And I'm saying in no uncertain terms that "Google has an undo influence on what features get prioritized in implemented" under a non-monoculture. That would be worse without Firefox as a balancing force.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChrisFerdinandi @slightlylate and
You're calling it "leadership." I'm calling it "corporate control of a shared, common resource."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm sorry we seemingly can't have a debate about values and outcomes. Makes me sad.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @hashseed and
I think we can. Our values are just not aligned on this one. That’s ok, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChrisFerdinandi @hashseed and
We will discover our shared values from debate about shared evidence. To do that, we must have a rhetorical space where the other side is not defacto wrong or anti-social.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
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.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.