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

Re: Nomination for Co-Editor: Dave Hyatt

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:01:36 -0700
Message-Id: <740A336E-D432-4705-A621-CF0848EBD444@apple.com>
Cc: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>, W3C HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>

On Apr 22, 2007, at 10:30 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:

> Hi, Matthew-
> Matthew Raymond wrote:
>>    The point is that although people like Ian and Dave, through the
>> formation of the WHATWG, are largely responsible for pressuring  
>> the W3C
>> into forming this working group, they are now being excluded from
>> positions in the group because their actions were politically
>> inconvenient. (In fact, I think the word "inconvenient" was used  
>> in the
>> Babylon 5 episode I referenced.)
> I'm at a loss as to how you regard their being nominated (and most  
> likely appointed) as editors as being excluded from positions in  
> this group.  No one (not myself, and certainly not the chairs)  
> suggested that they *not* be made editors.  Just the opposite, the  
> chairs seem ready to appoint Ian as one of the editors.
> I'm asking for an *additional* editor with a background and  
> perspective outside the WHATWG.  Don't you think that's a  
> reasonable request?

Wouldn't someone who had no involvement in WHATWG be likely to have  
major philosophical differences with Ian and Dave, and therefore  
probably not work very well with them? This on top of the extra  
coordination complexity from every added editor.

> To play devil's advocate... turn the question around and ask why  
> people who were not involved in the WHATWG are being excluded from  
> positions in this group

Neither of our chairs had any involvement in WHATWG. These are the  
only official positions in the group so far. And no one has excluded  
you from the position you sort-of-volunteered for.

> because they don't follow some of the axioms of the WHATWG (such as  
> the rigid stance that HTML 5.0 must include everything from  
> previous versions of the language,

That's not an axiom of the WHATWG - the Web Apps 1.0 draft omits many  
HTML4.01 elements and attributes from conformant documents, although  
likely most of them will still be required and specified for  

> and that no improvements that are not backwards compatible can be  
> made).

This is definitely a very strong rule. But the whole point of doing a  
new version of HTML5 instead of just going with XHTML2 is backwards  
compatibility. So I am not sure why we would want to accommodate an  
opposing point of view.

>   Have you considered that perspective?
> In point of fact, since no decision has been made, nobody at all  
> has been excluded, and I don't think alarmist talk like that  
> improves the dialog.  We are all free to air our opinions here,  
> right?  As Maciej said, though, it's better if our opinions are  
> backed up by substantive arguments.

There hasn't been any inclusion or exclusion. But I think some may  
consider people or ideas linked with WHATWG as somehow tainted and in  
need of counterbalancing. I would prefer if people and ideas were  
judged on their merits, and not on perceived association with this  
faction or that.

I can understand that corporate affiliation is a special case, since  
there will be a perception of bias even when not actually present,  
and because many companies participating in this group are  
competitors. But treating participation in the same standards group  
this way seems mistaken to me. If not, then how are we going to find  
a candidate for editor with no prior W3C affiliation? Both Dave and  
Ian have been members of various W3C Working Groups for longer than  
WHATWG has even existed.

Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 06:01:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:19 UTC