W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

RE: face to face meeting host offers for the HTML WG?

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:03:40 -0700
Message-ID: <44FAFFCDE516434D84E6B62121DB6A440536AE68@WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <work@gavinpearce.co.uk>
CC: <public-html@w3.org>

Gavin,
	That would be my point exactly.  Follow the thread on my blog
and Daniel's (my first post is at
http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive/2007/01/10/you-me-and-the-w3c-aka-r
einventing-html.aspx) and perhaps you'll see what I'm referring to.

I want to evolve HTML.  I thought at one point, apparently naively, that
since I could see both sides of the issue - the value of both the WHATWG
goals and the W3C IP policy and process - that perhaps I could help here
and make this a better world.  I can't do that and fight personal
battles at the same time.  I feel I've been doing that, being accused of
making some kind of secret back-room deals or something that I simply
haven't been doing.  Perhaps this just caught me at a bad time; Daniel's
mail to me seemed to imply that a sizable portion of the group does not
want me to be co-chair.  If you collectively don't think it's a good
idea to have me as co-chair, then I'd prefer not to waste my time, and
I'm sure Dan will do a fine job.  I'm asking for a vote of confidence
(or not) from the rest of the group.  My feelings are not going to be
hurt either way.  

Regardless of my co-chairship, someone from Microsoft will participate
in this WG.  I've said that before, it continues to be true.  Even if I
am co-chair, I've said I think it might be a good idea to have a
different Microsoft WG representative.  I'm sorry we have not been agile
in getting approval for that participation; I take full personal
responsibility for that.  It has been an accident of very poor timing, a
somewhat lengthy process that we must follow internal to Microsoft for
due diligence, and my own time management that has caused this delay,
not necessarily in that order.  It is not due to a lack of interest or
desire.

-Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin Pearce [mailto:work@gavinpearce.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:45 AM
To: Chris Wilson
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Subject: RE: face to face meeting host offers for the HTML WG?

Chris,

I don't personally know the work either you or Daniel have done, nor do
I
know past involvements.

However I do know this WG has nothing to do with personal issues, and
you
have really lowered my opinion of yourself in making it into such a
matter.

As I have not read any messages from Daniel aimed at such a note to
yourself, I can only take your word for it and say the same applies to
him
too.

It is for that reason, largely your message below, that makes me feel
that
perhaps you are not suitable to be co-chair on such a large and
important
project as such, as I for one (and I'm sure many others), will be
wondering
how many more "personal issues" will get in the way.

On the other hand your links with Microsoft are invaluable, which is why
I'm
sure some of us can put all these issues behind.

Considering what we are talking about in this WG, I feel we have no time
for
personal issues.

Please correct me as I freely admit I do not know the full story,
however
that is just my two pence worth.

- Gavin




-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Chris Wilson
Sent: 20 March 2007 16:20
To: Dan Connolly; Daniel Glazman
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Subject: RE: face to face meeting host offers for the HTML WG?


Daniel,
	I am getting quite fed up with you sniping at me.  I apologize
for the delay; due to all the revisions of the charter, the actual
charter ("draft", but essentially the final charter) was delivered to me
on 2/28 (that is, just under three weeks ago) - while I was heading out
to start a round of travel.  I've been in my office for exactly three
days in that last three weeks, and have had an entirely booked schedule
during that time.

Joining any W3C WG requires a process internal to Microsoft to review
the intellectual property and legal ramifications of that participation.
Under the W3C Patent Policy, I would hope any of you in sizable
organizations have to do the same thing.  At any rate, I could not
possibly have started said review until the WG had a final charter.  The
ensuing three weeks has been a result of timing with my travel.  I am
working on it now.  I expect it will take at least a week; it may take
more, it depends on what IP conflicts legal turns up.

You seem to have a personal problem with me being co-chair of this
group.  You've stated your objections, and the W3C chose (partly based
on those, I imagine, though I have no actual knowledge) to have a
co-chair (my esteemed colleague Dan).  Despite your continued claims, I
was not "chosen" - I was asked, based on my history of involvement with
the web and with HTML.  You appear to continue to have an issue.  You
claim  to represent others' opinions as well here.  I would like to
suggest, in that case, that the current members of the WG ("invited
experts" as well, as far as I'm concerned) take a vote to decide if they
want me to be co-chair or not.

I would be happy (as I've previously stated) to not have that
responsibility, and I certainly have tremendous confidence and respect
for Dan, and would support him as sole chair (I was delighted when he
told me he was signing up to co-chair).  Your continued sniping is
making it harder for me to feel like I could do a good job ensuring that
the perspectives of those such as yourself is properly honored, which as
I've said since the beginning was my goal - to reconcile the goals of
those who started the WHATWG with the patent policy and views of the
W3C.  I do not like being called a joke, nor do I like being accused of
being disingenuous.  If this is the way the WG members are going to be,
then I cannot in good conscience believe I can help as chair.

As for FTF meeting - I've offered to host at Microsoft, but really don't
care.  I have also begun making plans to attend XTech, since it seems
there will be a large set of the HTML WG people there.  I have one
potential conflicting time block that I cannot change, from June 12th
through the 26th.  Other than that time period, I will show up
whenever/wherever, and you don't need to wait on me getting permission
to join the WG to plan that.

-Chris

PS - Dan, I expect this will bounce off the public-html list since I'm
not subscribed, please forward it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 6:27 AM
To: Daniel Glazman; Chris Wilson
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: face to face meeting host offers for the HTML WG?

On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 06:04 +0100, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> On 19/03/2007 23:49, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> > We're still short a co-chair, so I'm still not inclined
> > to make group decisions of this sort, yet.
> 
> Dan, sorry to say, but this begins to be a big joke,
> and unfortunately a very shocking one. Microsoft was associated
> to the creation of this WG and whatever is blocking them right
> now should have been a resolved problem at least months ago.
> 
> Because I discussed this with other members of the Group, I think
> I will express many people's opinion here : could the W3C please ping
> Microsoft, and use not only an email/phone call but also a needle ?

Well, I flew down to Austin to talk to Chris in person a week
ago.

Chris, can you give us an ETA?

> This is enough, and they should be here right now.
> 
> What was the extreme urgency to approve the charter before WHATWG
review
> and approval if the Group just cannot start because we still miss a
> co-chairman who was chosen as co-chairman almost A YEAR AGO ?
> 
> </Daniel>
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 17:05:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 March 2007 17:05:41 GMT