One great thing about watching the future of the Web being planned in the open is that you can see how smart people having open discussions, combined with the occasional sudden realization, epiphany, or unexpected spark of creative genius can make the Web a better place for everyone.
This is something I’m reminded of regularly when I read mailing list discussions about plans to implement new Web APIs or browser features. There are a number of different kinds of discussion that take place on these mailing lists, but the ones that have fascinated me the most lately have been the “Intent to…” threads.
There are three classes of “Intent to…” thread:
- Intent to implement. This thread begins with an announcement that someone plans to begin work on implementing a new feature. This could be an entire API, or a single new function, or anything in between. It could be a change to how an existing technology behaves, for that matter.
- Intent to ship. This thread starts with the announcement that a feature or technology which has been implemented, or is in the process of being implemented, will be shipped in a particular upcoming version of the browser.
- Intent to unship. This thread starts by announcing that a previously shipped feature will be removed in a given release of the software. This usually means rolling back a change that had unexpected consequences.
In each of these cases, discussion and debate may arise. Sometimes the discussion is very short, with a few people agreeing that it’s a good (or bad) idea, and that’s that. Other times, the discussion becomes very lengthy and complicated, with proposals and counter-proposals and debates (and, yes, sometimes arguments) about whether it’s a good idea or how to go about doing it the best way possible.
You know… I just realized that this change could be why the following sites aren’t working on nightly builds… maybe we need to figure out a different way to do this.
This sounds great, but what if we add a parameter to this function so we can make it more useful to a wider variety of content by…
The conversation frequently starts innocuously enough, with general agreement or minor suggestions that might improve the implementation, and then, sometimes, out of nowhere someone points out a devastating and how-the-heck-did-we-miss-that flaw in the design that causes the conversation to shift into a debate about the best way to fix the design. Result: a better design that works for more people with fewer side effects.
These discussions are part of what makes the process of inventing the Web in the open great. Anyone who has an interest can offer a suggestion or insight that might totally change the shape of things to come. And by announcing upcoming changes in threads such as these, developers make it easier than ever to get involved in the design of the Web as a platform.
Mozilla is largely responsible for the design process of the Web being an open one. Before our global community became a force to be reckoned with, development crawled along inside the walls of one or two corporate offices. Now, dozens of companies and millions of people are active participants in the design of the Web and its APIs. It’s a legacy that every Mozillian—past, present, and future—can be very proud of.