W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2006

Re: HTML WG charter review, tracking feedback

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:23:21 -0600
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Dean Jackson <dino@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Steve Bratt <steve@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Hypertext CG <w3c-html-cg@w3.org>, w3c-html-cg-request@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <1164234201.3997.660.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 13:05 -0800, John Boyer wrote:
> 
> Hi Dan, 
> 
> The principal difficulty with your recommended approach is that it
> assumes the charter documents should be modified based solely on the
> out-of-band feedback being produced so far, not all of which
> necessarily has consensus of the W3C members who are using the review
> process as their means of communicating feedback. 

Hmm... I didn't mean to give that impression. I'm not assuming
anything of the sort. I think we mostly agree on how to proceed...

> I believe it would be better to consider all of the feedback together
> before concluding that significant changes to the charter are
> required. 

Well, I have been in Dean's position before, and it's pretty
difficult to just twiddle your thumbs for 4 weeks and not write
your thoughts down anywhere as the feedback comes in, and then
miraculously integrate it all into a Director's Decision in the
next few days so that The Director can issue a decision after
another 2 weeks.

> For one thing, some of the feedback posted so far could also appear in
> the review feedback classified as "Accept with minor revisions" in
> which case it may not be that the changes are "significant" in the
> sense of requiring another formal review. 

Yes, of course; I wonder what I said that gave an impression to
the contrary.

> Also, it might be reasonable to estimate the stretch goals after last
> call in quarters and years rather than months, whereas eliminating
> those stages from the charters entirely leads to the false impression
> that the working group is not required to take the work through to
> proposed rec. 

Yes, I agree; as I said, estimating a REC milestone is useful,
if challenging.

> Regarding the rather lengthy milestone periods being suggested in some
> recent feedback, I would interpret those as just a general uneasiness
> about everyone's ability to compromise.  But if we can put personal
> vested interests on the side and focus on innovating in ways that
> achieve the essential requirement that all of us have, which is to
> make life better for content authors and processor implementers, then
> it should indeed be possible to produce *something* useful by 2009.
>  Basically, we have to be more optimistic because development by a
> community works all the time, and it can work for the W3C too. 
> 
> As an example, I would encourage everyone to pay close attention to
> the demonstration Dave Raggett will give at the W3C AC meeting, which
> highlights what can be done by taking the best of Web Forms 2.0 and
> the XForms architecture together-- working on today's browsers (IE,
> Mozilla, Opera and Safari).

Indeed... I have only been following the www-forms discussion from
a distance, but what I saw looks quite promising...

A forms-lite straw man Dave Raggett (Tuesday, 5 September)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2006Sep/0055.html

>   It really is a portent of the significant positive results that
> could be achieved in quite short order through consideration of
> multiple viewpoints, which is fortunate because I believe this
> cooperation is exactly what is called for in the currently proposed
> charter documents for the HTML and Forms working groups. 
[...]
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2006 22:23:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:00 GMT