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

Re: Formal Objection in Questions 1 and 3 on the Ballot

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 00:52:42 +0000 (UTC)
To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, W3C HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0705050039410.747@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Sat, 5 May 2007, Terje Bless wrote:
>
> - In order for this Formal Objection to be removed,
>   the following must be done;
> 
>  a) Ian Hickson must give a clear statement that he accepts the role
>     of Editor in the WG, that is not contingent on how the WG chooses
>     to produce its deliverables. Further, that he will not make use of
>     his possible resignation as a treat or argument to influence how
>     the WG chooses make its decisions or to produce its deliverables.

I can't give that statement, because it would be a lie.

I'm happy to be an editor in this working group, but there's no point me 
volunteering to be an editor if I wouldn't have the time to do it or if 
the working conditions would be such that I would not be happy.

Thus, as I have said before, I would only volunteer as editor if:

 * the specification developed by the HTML WG is exactly the same as the
   specification developed by the WHATWG, and

 * the specification is written using an iterative model where the 
   editors listen to all the feedback, update the spec to take this 
   feedback into account, and repeat the process, and

 * only major objections that cannot be resolved even after the iterative 
   model has been thoroughly applied get escalated to group-wide 
   consensus-based voting.

These are not intended to be threats, nor am I attempting to hold the spec 
or the working group hostage. I am not willing to put this specification 
above my own health and well-being, and this therefore requires that I 
have enough time to do the work, and that the work be pleasant. Trying to 
write one spec is a full-time job, I couldn't write two. Trying to write a 
spec using a full consensus-based approach all the way from initial 
proposals to finished product is too stressful for me.

Now, that isn't to say that the group should adopt the WHATWG spec, nor is 
it to say that the group should adopt the editing model I've described 
above. I would still want to be an active part of this working group even 
if the group went in another direction. I just wouldn't be interested in 
being an editor.

Indeed, you will note that I (and therefore Google) abstained from voting 
on the topic, because I do not want to make it seem that I (or Google) is 
trying to steer this working group one way or another.

So, in conclusion. I cannot accept the role of Editor in the WG in a 
manner that is not contingent on how the WG chooses to produce its 
deliverables. I do not think that asking me to make such a commitment is a 
sensible request.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2007 00:52:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:58 GMT