W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Nomination for Co-Editor: Dave Hyatt

From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:56:40 -0400
Message-ID: <1835D662B263BC4E864A7CFAB2FEEB3D258BD3@msfexch01.srunet.sruad.edu>
To: <public-html@w3.org>

 
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:14:45 Doug Schepers wrote supporting the suggestion of Dave Hyatt as editor:

>I think so as well, but we should also get someone else who isn't 
>involved in the WHATWG stuff.  I'd like to see another editor with a 
>different viewpoint from Ian and Dave (not that they necessarily always 
>agree).
 
I agree. There are probably seven plus or minus two credentials appropriate to such a job.
1. Understanding the drafting of specs.
2. Awareness of future trends.
3. Working well with chairs, other editors, and the community at large.
4. Flexibility and tolerance for dissent, to ensure that the process remains representative.
5. and so forth
 
I have confidence that those who have spoken on behalf of the names mentioned thus far can vouch for #1 and #2. Not knowing anyone involved in WHATWG, my concern about representativeness is based on a simple observation that some humans have a tendency to feel pride in work they have accomplished. It would not be surprising if those deeply involved in the formulation of the WHATWG document might come to resist efforts to modify that work in any ways they might perceive as fundamental. 
 
The chairs have demonstrated talents in areas #3 and #4 so I have considerable confidence in their ability to choose editors wisely. I would encourage others to support whatever they should decide.
 
The HTML WG has a number of people whose status is listed as "W3C Invited Experts." My suspicion is that a goodly number of those would bring complementary talents. Alternatively, if  Doug Schepers could be persuaded to serve in some editorial capacity - he has already volunteered to help with Maciej's call for help with issue tracking - it would, I think help to keep the editorial process from becoming too opaque or partisan.
 
Adding expertise to the editorial process from areas that encourage interoperability with other W3C recommendations such as OWL, SVG, or MathML might help assure that the browser environment (seen currently by most of the world as exclusively the domain of HTML) can move toward a future that is more inclusive, representative and multilingual.
 
David Dailey
Received on Sunday, 22 April 2007 13:56:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:53 GMT