Comment by JimDabell
5 days ago
> We held a vote that you weren’t aware of and decided that masonry was out. If you cared, you should have participated in the vote that you were not aware was happening. It’s too late to change it.
I think that’s an exceptionally uncharitable description of what happened. This is a decision the WebKit team has been repeatedly publicly asking people to participate in for over 18 months.
> Help us invent CSS Grid Level 3, aka “Masonry” layout
> P.S. About the name
> It’s likely masonry is not the best name for this new value. […] The CSSWG is debating this name in [this issue]. If you have ideas or preferences for a name, please join that discussion.
— https://webkit.org/blog/15269/help-us-invent-masonry-layouts...
> Help us choose the final syntax for Masonry in CSS
> We also believe that the value masonry should be renamed.
> As described in our previous article, “masonry” is not an ideal name, since it represents a metaphor, and not a direct description of its purpose. It’s also not a universally used name for this kind of layout. Many developers call it “waterfall layout” instead, which is also a metaphor.
> Many of you have made suggestions for a better name. Two have stood out, collapse and pack as in — grid-template-rows: collapse or grid-template-rows: pack. Which do you like better? Or do you have another suggestion? Comment on [this issue] specifically about a new value name (for the Just Use grid option).
— https://webkit.org/blog/16026/css-masonry-syntax/#footnote-1
> [css-grid-3] Renaming masonry keyword
The debates went on for years and following it closely became a poor use of time. Even the subgrid conversation seemed completely stalled. I think a lot of people tuned out long before any vote was discussed. I did.
But if you were the one who tuned out, then isn’t it uncharitable to describe it as their failing to make you aware of the vote? Isn’t it on you to stay in the loop?
Surely they can’t start just pinging everyone who might have cared at some point during the time to get involved.
I get what you're saying but making interminable arguments and keeping the "debate" going is a tactic. There's that CIA sabotage manual with the section about meetings and conferences, it can feel like that. The duration of these debates aren't usually measured in hours, days, or weeks, but years. And the people who dragging them on and staying in the fights are employed full-time to do exactly that.
It got to the point where I believed that subgrid was dead. FF implemented it but absolutely no one else did, for years.
Is it our fault for tuning out of the debate? Yep. But tactics were employed to achieve that exact outcome. I'm fine admitting that I tuned out. But it was a battle of attrition waged by people who were fine holding up progress indefinitely.
Is that how you want decisions to be made?
Ultimately I'm not too concerned what you call the masonry feature. However the debate over what to call it was an extreme case of bikeshedding. I would have rather given up the fight over semantics to resolve the non-issues and ship the feature years ago. As it stands we're still years away from actually being able to use the feature in production.
I've stopped waiting for companies, committees, or projects to change course. I don't have an incentive to build consensus within a group of people who fundamentally disagree that the thing I need should exist. Why bother? I have an incentive to spend my time building features that users will use.
2 replies →