Re: Proposal to Adopt HTML5

On Apr 18, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Olivier GENDRIN wrote:

>
> On 4/19/07, James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Dan Connolly wrote:
>> >> - that Ian Hickson is named as editor for the W3C's HTML 5
>> >> specification, to preserve continuity with the existing WHATWG  
>> effort
>> >
>> > Chris and I are delighted to have Ian Hickson as one of the  
>> editors,
>> > but not satisfied with having him as the only editor. We're  
>> continuing
>> > to recruit co-editors.
>>
>> Dan, can you elaborate on this a little? Do you have some reason for
>> believing that multiple editors will work better than a single  
>> editor?
>
> Karl exposed the security reasons :
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0585.html. We
> *need* more than one editor because 'the show must go on', whatever it
> happens.

We do want to reduce our risk of catastrophic failure. The degree to  
which adding a co-editor will do this, compared to having other  
experts following the spec and performing other roles, depends on the  
specific candidate. The potential co-editor might not even be the  
best choice for heir apparent, compared to people who are competent  
to do it but currently decline for lack of time.

> On a broader scale, we are generating *many* emails,
> reactions, documents, and one editor only will shurly miss some
> reactions. And the effort of some editor to understand each other and
> to make compromise should lead to a more clear spec.

Responsibility for tracking feedback does not need to be in one-to- 
one correspondence with ability to directly modify the spec document.  
Regardless of how many editors there are, I hope we designate some  
additional people to be responsible for issue tracking.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 00:47:07 UTC