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

Re: Forms Taskforce participation

From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:52:03 -0400
Message-ID: <46CB96C3.8080405@earthlink.net>
To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
CC: public-html@w3.org

Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
>> Matthew Raymond: I'll refrain from self-commentary. I'd like to hear
>> people's comments on this, actually.
> I think you'd be a fine candidate. Same for Anne and Maciej. I'm not sure
> that the *combination* of those three would be balanced enough though.
> Besides being able to work together professionally, it seems wise to choose
> people who bring different knowledge and experience to the table. Some sort
> of balance between browser implementation expertise, authoring expertise and
> accessibility expertise, would seem ideal. A balance between progressive and
> conservative is probably also healthy.

   While I would generally agree with that, I don't see how that type of
balance can be achieved without an equally balanced set of (X)Forms WG
delegates, which I'm not very hopeful about.

>> Gregory Rosmaita: Very active in the mailing list. However, I question
>> the quality and tactfulness of many of his arguments.
> My feeling is that many WG members are displaying lack of tact regularly.
> Singling one person out like this is an example of that, so if "lack of tact"
> would be an argument against Gregory, it would be just as much an argument
> against yourself ;) (Personally I don't take much issue with lack of tact in
> itself -- not when the quality of the argument is good.)

   I was discussing the specific individuals that had expressed and
interest in being on the Task Force. For me to have discussed how
tactless everyone on the mailing list is would have been well off-topic.
You could argue that perhaps some people on the list are less tactful
than Gregory, but I fail to see how simply expressing my honest opinion
makes me less tactful than the next person. As for my own opinion of
myself, there's an obvious conflict of interest. ;)

> As to quality: I think that Gregory can bring much more quality to this task
> force at least as far accessibility issues are concerned than any of the
> other candidates you mention (well, in as much as I know them).

   Didn't really consider the accessibility angle, though I can't say
I've been overly impressed with his accessibility-related arguments.
Then again, in replying to him I did come up with several good ideas, so
perhaps you're right about including him, just for the wrong reasons.

> As I understand it, he's also familiar with XFORMS already.

   With half the people in the TF practically guaranteed to be XForms
experts, I don't see the advantage in that.

> (Then again, I haven't
> seen much forms discussion at all on this list which makes it hard to judge
> anyone's quality on this terrain.)

   I posted a message called "Comments on XForms Transitional" [1],
which was a detailed description of the XFT draft at the time. (Have
they even updated that draft?) Not only did NO ONE reply to the message,
but I found out later during a teleconference that the Forms WG folks
didn't even know the message existed, in spite of the fact it had
"XForms Transitional" in the title. Why post if no one is listening?

   Add to this the fact that you have a Task Force that's just being
assembled now that is overseeing something nebulous and scary called
"architectural consistency" and you have a recipe for non-participation.

> That aside, I'm not at [all] convinced that someone must 'know everything' to
> be able to provide a valuable contribution. The point of having several
> people work on something together is that they can fill the gaps in each
> other's knowledge/experience. So I don't think we should be looking for
> individuals who would be perfect, but a group that would be perfect *as a
> group*.

   I don't disagree, but I think the current 3 vs 3 deal we have going
on is very conducive to that.

>>  I'm wondering if the small
>> size of the Task Force might limit its ability to come up with creative
>> solutions and effective compromises.
> Yes. And a bigger group would probably make it easier to reach a balanced
> group. (But 'too' big can make it too ineffective.)

   To me, "too big" would be greater than a dozen. Ten is probably the
sweet spot. Alternatively, we could have "non-voting" members who
contribute ideas but can't participate in the decision making. (Not sure
how I feel about that idea, though.)

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007JanMar/0793.html
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2007 01:52:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC