Thanks for bringing back the discussion onto a constructive path.
As Laura said in the first comment to this post I believe HTML 5 should be the priority. We all want it out the door. Badly. And more importantly, as the spec states, having the spec finalised would mean that two implementations have been created.
This is really what we want to see happen first, and what WaSP should probably put its weight behind.

Although it looks like WaSP has been “played” by Microsoft, I don’t think that’s what actually happened. Based on blog posts from Jeffrey, Eric and Molly, it looks more like Molly’s pressure for openness convinced MS that they could discuss this feature before shipping — and then Aaron (understandably) took the opportunity to get it out in the open as soon as possible.

ALA just assumed that WaSP was fully informed on the issue, and that it was a done deal — and then was shocked at the response. A major misunderstanding, but it doesn’t look deliberate to me.

I agree with you that the implied endorsement of this proposal by WaSP is what makes it unpalatable — presented almost as a “web standard”. If MS had insisted on doing it, and WaSP acquiesced but didn’t actively endorse it, there would have been less controversy.

I think the most positive outcome of this is the openness of your post — it’s surely a good idea to talk about the issues WaSP faces, instead of hoping they’ll go away.

This has nothing to do with Drew but I think overall the formal WaSP members just aren’t as ‘community’ focused as they could be. Work commitments are largely to blame I imagine but I have a feeling SXSW has a lot to do with it too. Why? Well if you don’t go there and meet people then it can feel like you are moved outside of the loop. Online personalities start with inside jokes that started over beer in Austin and things start to appear elitist.

This isn’t the reality, just a perception. I would say the first thing to do is distance WaSP from any particular conference unless it runs its own break even event.

Go back to the community, ask them, revisit the purpose and goal of WaSP, maybe redefine. Being in the middle of rebuilding a volunteer run organization with 1400 paying members, I will admit its not easy. But its required and possible.

The fallout of this situation is pretty bleak, but rescuable I think, if those involved are able to put the time in.

I have to say, Rachel, I share the sentiment about WaSP being played by Microsoft. I can’t bring myself to believe that something so malicious and vile was intentionally planned by anyone inside that organisation, but the way X-UA has been communicated is, regardless of intent, extremely manipulative of the web standards community.

• Microsoft’s own announcement praises and credits the entire Web Standards project for the outcome. I felt desperately uncomfortable reading it, effectively seeing the blame shifted, or credibility sought through name association.

• Similarly, the ALA article presents the HTTP header solution as something that’s wonderful for the web, solves our web developer’s problems, and that everything would be great if the other browsers did it too. It’s just outright misleading, dodging the truth that this is a problem of Microsoft’s own making.

The problems with those miscommunications are separate from this, though. The damage to the reputation of WaSP (and ALA) is done. It’s stirred up interest, and for all the bull, it’s highlighted legitimate problems that WaSP has to solve too (albeit often in the wrong tone, such is Zeldman’s want).

WaSP should survive, but needs to better communicate that the work it does now is smaller scale, that’s not guerilla warfare anymore. And then, there’ve got to be updates. Status. Which as I too well know, is desperately hard to provide reliably in a volunteer organisation. But somehow, it needs to happen. People can see little logs of what a TF is attempting to do. Maybe they should have Twitter accounts.

Also, almost from a presentational point of view, where TFs exist under NDA, that should be clear. Where something like the the Microsoft TF is deployed with no means of reporting back, it has to be put across differently from a group that is able to operate in the open. Maybe it’s management of expectations, but if now or in future WaSP sends a group of ninjas behind enemy lines under the cover of darkn… NDA… then followers of WaSP need to understand straight off that any results do not immediately represent the group, but that group endorsement will follow, promptly, where appropriate.

If you can only be as open as printing the words ‘Sorry, we cannot be open’ on the TF, then it should still be done.

If the people required know they can commit to it, then it’s probably a moment for WaSP to stand up, hold up its hands for being too quiet, then take a deep breath, state what it is doing right now, and then try to maintain it, and the communications. What’s gone wrong can’t necessarily be undone or resolved, so just acknowledge it, and then walk forwards.

Once people know for sure what the WaSP is actively doing, they’ll be in a better position to say what it _should_ be doing.

It doesn’t wash with me that the pending announcement could not have been shared with more WaSP members in the few days prior to it being made.

This is the problem for me. I wasn’t aware of the pending announcement and I am nominally the MSTF lead.
I agree with you. Microsoft have played the WaSP and are using its name to their advantage. If they are going to behave like this in the future then it might be best to sever our relationship with them.

Personally I would like to see WaSP getting the W3C in order. HTML5 and CSS3 are an ongoing mess, and the W3C seem incapable of listening to the people that will be using the tools daily. I appreciate that there have been minor attempts at soliciting advice from web designers recently, and am grateful to the W3C members that are going down this path, but they could really do with more direct help. We need clearer communication in and out of the W3C, and the W3C in general need a better regard for the people they are designing these tools for. “We cant do parent selectors” is not good enough. “Comment on our technical specification” is not good enough. The advanced layout module is not good enough. The general attitude over there is not good enough. Again, with apologies to the few W3C members who get this, and have been trying to sort it out. There are not enough of you guys I’m afraid.

But I am very surprised at the way it panned out with the whole ALA announcement any everything.

It does seem like the WASP is suffering from a whole host of issues from different camps, such as apathy, and as you say, unclear direction. It *is* a lot harder now it isn’t so obvious who the bad guys are.

My personal experience:

1. Myself and my colleague David Storey tried to talk to WaSP about setting up a mobile task force to deal with mobile web development issues, but after afew mails, it just didn’t seem to go anywhere (correct me if I’m wrong.) Have you guys still got that in mind?

2. Back when I worked for friends of ED, I tried to get the ETF to help me tech review and promote an educational text teaching proper web standards development, for universities to use, etc. Stephanie Troeth was very helpful, but the others that said they’d help out ended up being completely non-responsive and therefore stalling the project horribly. I’m doing the same thing now at Opera, but will be releasing it online to use for free. Can I count on the ETF’s help this time? Do they even exist any more?

http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?p=26