- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:46:38 -0700
- To: Olivier GENDRIN <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>
- Cc: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Apr 18, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Olivier GENDRIN wrote: > > On 4/19/07, James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> Dan Connolly wrote: >> >> - that Ian Hickson is named as editor for the W3C's HTML 5 >> >> specification, to preserve continuity with the existing WHATWG >> effort >> > >> > Chris and I are delighted to have Ian Hickson as one of the >> editors, >> > but not satisfied with having him as the only editor. We're >> continuing >> > to recruit co-editors. >> >> Dan, can you elaborate on this a little? Do you have some reason for >> believing that multiple editors will work better than a single >> editor? > > Karl exposed the security reasons : > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0585.html. We > *need* more than one editor because 'the show must go on', whatever it > happens. We do want to reduce our risk of catastrophic failure. The degree to which adding a co-editor will do this, compared to having other experts following the spec and performing other roles, depends on the specific candidate. The potential co-editor might not even be the best choice for heir apparent, compared to people who are competent to do it but currently decline for lack of time. > On a broader scale, we are generating *many* emails, > reactions, documents, and one editor only will shurly miss some > reactions. And the effort of some editor to understand each other and > to make compromise should lead to a more clear spec. Responsibility for tracking feedback does not need to be in one-to- one correspondence with ability to directly modify the spec document. Regardless of how many editors there are, I hope we designate some additional people to be responsible for issue tracking. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 00:47:07 UTC