W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Case for/data about elections

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 00:27:49 -0400
Message-ID: <53841445.3070301@w3.org>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "Nottingham, Mark" <mnotting@akamai.com>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
CC: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>

On 5/26/2014 5:32 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> Jeff,
>
>> We've been attempting to fight "complicated and fragile" through modularity.
> Modularity done this way risks taking a big complicated thing and chopping sit into a number of smaller (still complicated) things.

Certainly not a panacea.  But in my experience, modular design helps 
demonstrate functions and interfaces clearly - as opposed to spaghetti 
code which may not.

>
>>   Many of the major workgroups (e.g. CSS, WebApps, even now HTML) are looking to increase modularity
> Organizational structure constrains modularity. If the question is the division of the platform into modules -- whether some functionality belongs in HTML or belongs in CSS, for example -- then this isn't something the working groups can effectively manage, because the group is already selected to the boundary it has.    Does it belong it all? Working groups are self-selected to favor the technology's deployment.

If some functionality is being done in CSS that belongs in HTML or vice 
versa, that could certainly cause awkwardness in the design. Are there 
particular examples you have in mind?  Are there specific examples which 
demonstrate that a CSS module would have been architected more cleanly 
if done in the HTML working group?

>
>> in the hope that it leads to clarity.
> "clarity" is one of the weakest things to look for; say simplicity, performance, security, reliability, extensibility....
>
>>   I don't know if we are doing it well enough
> Who is the "we" who is doing "it" ? Isn't that the topic of this exchange?

"I don't know if W3C Recommendations being done in W3C Working Groups 
are building sufficient modularity into the Open Web Platform as one 
lever to addressing 'complicated and fragile'."

>
>> or if this is even the best approach to fight "complicated and fragile".
> Encouraging modularity within working groups is OK but it won't get you there.
>
> The design of how a system is composed of modules and how those modules interact -- that's what I usually call "architecture", and what I'd hoped the TAG would have managed. Another major source of discontinuities is the jagged boundaries between W3C, IETF, ECMA/TC39, ISO specs, especially non-web applications.

Yes, I agree that this would be helpful.  Have you raised this recently 
with the TAG?

>
> To the point of the thread: any election/selection process discussion should focus first on getting groups that can effectively manage the web architecture and the process for evolving it.
>

The overall thread is talking about both AB elections and TAG elections, 
but this sub-thread is focused on the TAG.

It would be brilliant if at the next TAG election, that some candidates 
articulate a technical design to address the architecture problem you 
mentioned above.  I would hope that if anyone's platform had a 
compelling approach to a solution that they would be elected 
irrespective of the process used for election.
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2014 04:28:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:10 UTC