Clearly we see this play out in global politics these days. What's the implication of this for the evolution of open platforms?
-
-
Replying to @RickByers @dfabu and
I think this is an erroneous view that is causing Googlers to circle the wagons and become increasingly insular. I'd be happy to have an offline conversation about this but I really don't think the perspective of Google's culture is trending positive.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wycats @RickByers and
Am I understanding your POV that Googlers becoming insular is *causing* these problems, and that insulation is a vicious cycle? Specifically, is that what you think happened to toast?
7 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
IMO, what happened to toast was that folks assumed that Google wants to abuse its market power to ship stuff without going through standardization, and that implementation naturally comes only after standardization. They thought I2I meant "we're done with standardization."
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
And that was clearly a bad-faith argument by many who knew better. Some were genuinely confused. Neither bothered to stop and ask if their assumption of malign intent was correct. SMDH.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @dfabu and
Yes, there was genuine confusion about process, which Google has taken positive steps to fix. But I'm not sure how helpful talk of "intent" is. Some of us feared that web features were being developed in a way that made it harder for the community to provide early feedback.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dauwhe @slightlylate and
With the benefit of hindsight, if it had been called "Intent to Prototype" all along instead of "Intent to Implement," would you have objected to the process?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dfabu @slightlylate and
One concern was that std-toast at least did not follow Google's process: "You should have at least an explainer in hand and have discussed the API on a public forum with other browser vendors or standards bodies before sending an intent to implement."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But certainly, the clarification of the nature of "intent to implement" would have helped.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I2P/I2I is an FYI. We aren't legalistic about the ordering there, and I recommend you not be either. It's also problematic to invoke "Google" when the actors here are relatively small teams and individual engineers within Blink who are operating under the Chromium process.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Similarly, it's not "Google's process", it's the Chromium process. That process is responsible to the API OWNERS (myself included) and historically come from many Chromium-using vendors.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @dauwhe and
But the objections here weren't phrased as "Google didn't follow the Chromium process in the most exacting way!" tho I hesitate to characterize them differently for fear of being uncharitable.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 4 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.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.