[MPEG-OTSPEC] Proposal to discontinue the AdHoc Group

[Peter Constable]

I want to be careful with too much discussion of what happens _outside_ the AHG (or SC29 or its WGs) as that can quickly strays off topic for this list. To the extent that it pertains to how the AHG does work or how people would like it to work, I'll briefly respond.

> You seem to think of this as a good thing.

John had suggested a buffer from ISO process was a good thing. I wasn't giving a value judgment to apply generally. 

There are many ways of developing ideas that may make their way to the AHG as proposals. In some situations, discussion initially within or between private companies may be perfectly fine. Certainly, there are strong advocates for very open processes that on occasion may also _very strongly_ support working initially in the way I described. In the general case, at _some_ level ideas will most likely germinate with some amount of discussion among a limited audience outside the AHG. By their nature, those will always be unclear and opaque to others. One can browse to commontype.org and see specifications that might, potentially, get submitted to the AHG at some point. But on the surface looking at that site, the process behind that seems very unclear and opague; my limited understanding is that this has been initiated by a private company, Google, and some back room collaborators. 

One can't have things both ways: saying its terrible on the one hand but strongly supporting it on the other. For my part, I don't assume any constraints on how ideas can or should be developed to be brought to the AHG. My only particular concern is that there is good opportunity for broad review and confirmed consensus among implementers. 

That is basically how the AHG has always operated. My only concerns have ever been things not getting adequate review, though I can't say that's ever been because Vlad didn't provide sufficient time for review.


Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Cozens <simon at simon-cozens.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:25 PM
To: Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com>; John Hudson <john at tiro.ca>; mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at
Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] Proposal to discontinue the AdHoc Group

On 23/09/2020 23:21, Peter Constable wrote:
> Microsoft as owners and stewards of the OT spec have at times provided 
> a context in which MS and other industry collaborators could innovate 
> on the font format and feed those innovations into OFF. In those 
> situations, that context provided just the kind of buffer you describe.
> Variations is an familiar example of that.

You seem to think of this as a good thing. I think it is terrible for a private company to act as a "buffer" on an open standard - particularly when the processes by which the "buffer" operates are unclear and opaque. Inviting contributions to go through that buffer in itself gives Microsoft de facto power, including veto power, over such contributions.

If Microsoft was genuinely and honestly committed to the OFF as an open specification, there would be no need for it to maintain OT as a separate "private" standard, and you would be calling for contributions here, not there. The fact that Microsoft both handed over OpenType for standardisation *and still kept it* speaks volumes about its commitment to the process.

S