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

Re: Forms Task Force Charter Requirement

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 17:14:36 -0700
Message-Id: <9E68647F-122E-4D73-84AA-AABD7101DD07@apple.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>


Hi John,

On May 3, 2007, at 4:19 PM, John Boyer wrote:

> You're not sure because you're not sure where the compromise is  
> because you are stridently opposed to any form of compromise.

You've stated that you are unwilling to drop your Formal Objection  
unless you get exactly what you asked for. Since I disagree that what  
you asked for is good, if you are unwilling to budge, I don't see how  
compromise is possible. Unless you think compromise consists of me  
just agreeing with your existing position.

> Your language about anything you want to ignore being non-binding  
> speaks volumes.
> Again, it looks like the W3C is bending all its rules to try and  
> accommodate a wider community involvement only to have someone  
> attempting to use the most rigidity and inflexibility available to  
> quash the best intentions of the people who worked so hard to  
> formulate those charters.

You are the one who cast things as a Formal Objection based on  
process. Given this, it behooves us to evaluate what the actual  
process rules are what you say. Now that we've seen that the process  
does not support your complaint, you're accusing me of bad faith in  
actually applying what the process says.

If you'd like to recast your Formal Objection based on technical  
process arguments as a polite request based on mutual respect and  
collegiality, I'd be glad to address it in that light.

> You really need to take a chill pill, find a dictionary and look up  
> what "working together" means.
> I'm really not going to keep servicing your inability to understand  
> a world larger than your own.

I think I've shown more willingness to collaborate than you. For  
example, I asked you what your actual technical requirements are,  
posted them, and proposed refining them further and making sure HTML  
Forms matched them. I don't think you've ever asked me what my  
requirements are. You did ask what I thought the problems were with  
XForms as-is, and ignored my reply. And instead of responding in  
substance to my proposal for how the Forms Task Force should work,  
you first tried to cite charter documents, and then when I responded  
in kind accused me of being a bad collaborator.

I think that is an unfair accusation. Please let's keep the arguments  
on this list to technical issues and leave the ad hominem out of it.

What I'd like to figure out is if there's a way to address the needs  
of Forms WG without giving you guys editorial control of part of the  
spec, which I think is a bad idea and not justified by the charter.  
Is there anything short of editorial control that would satisfy you?  
Consider, for example, my proposal of defining shared architectural  
requirements and reviewing both specs to ensure they satisfy the  
requirements. Surely this is a valid way to achieve architectural  
consistency. What do you find unsatisfactory about it? Perhaps that  
will help us find a middle ground.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 00:14:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:44 UTC