W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

RE: face to face meeting host offers for the HTML WG?

From: Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <49697.>
To: public-html@w3.org, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>


Daniel speaks for himself; any comments that may have been made about your
suitability as co-chair have apparently been made off-list (at least, I
have not seen any).  People are eager to start work, but there are
understandable obstacles to that at this point and I think most of us
recognize that.  In any event, I think the June deadline may be unfeasible
no matter when we begin, but that's another discussion.

I personally use Firefox and Safari, but Microsoft is far and away the
dominant player in the browser industry, and there must be significant
participation from it in order to validate whatever eventually results
from this working group.  Regardless of your personal qualifications (of
which I'm unfamiliar), having IE's platform architect as co-chair goes a
long way toward accomplishing this.

You've suggested having someone else be the Microsoft representative,
whatever your involvement in the working group is.  Given the time
requirements involved, I think dividing those responsibilities would be a
good idea.  Besides, even if you're acting in an unofficial capacity,
you'll still be familiar with Microsoft's perspective, and two people on
the list who can provide that is obviously better than one.


p.s. For purely selfish reasons, a FTF in Redmond would be great.  I live
10-15 minutes down the road.  ;-)

On Tue, March 20, 2007 9:19 am, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Daniel,
> 	I am getting quite fed up with you sniping at me.  I apologize
> for the delay; due to all the revisions of the charter, the actual
> charter ("draft", but essentially the final charter) was delivered to me
> on 2/28 (that is, just under three weeks ago) - while I was heading out
> to start a round of travel.  I've been in my office for exactly three
> days in that last three weeks, and have had an entirely booked schedule
> during that time.
> Joining any W3C WG requires a process internal to Microsoft to review
> the intellectual property and legal ramifications of that participation.
> Under the W3C Patent Policy, I would hope any of you in sizable
> organizations have to do the same thing.  At any rate, I could not
> possibly have started said review until the WG had a final charter.  The
> ensuing three weeks has been a result of timing with my travel.  I am
> working on it now.  I expect it will take at least a week; it may take
> more, it depends on what IP conflicts legal turns up.
> You seem to have a personal problem with me being co-chair of this
> group.  You've stated your objections, and the W3C chose (partly based
> on those, I imagine, though I have no actual knowledge) to have a
> co-chair (my esteemed colleague Dan).  Despite your continued claims, I
> was not "chosen" - I was asked, based on my history of involvement with
> the web and with HTML.  You appear to continue to have an issue.  You
> claim  to represent others' opinions as well here.  I would like to
> suggest, in that case, that the current members of the WG ("invited
> experts" as well, as far as I'm concerned) take a vote to decide if they
> want me to be co-chair or not.
> I would be happy (as I've previously stated) to not have that
> responsibility, and I certainly have tremendous confidence and respect
> for Dan, and would support him as sole chair (I was delighted when he
> told me he was signing up to co-chair).  Your continued sniping is
> making it harder for me to feel like I could do a good job ensuring that
> the perspectives of those such as yourself is properly honored, which as
> I've said since the beginning was my goal - to reconcile the goals of
> those who started the WHATWG with the patent policy and views of the
> W3C.  I do not like being called a joke, nor do I like being accused of
> being disingenuous.  If this is the way the WG members are going to be,
> then I cannot in good conscience believe I can help as chair.
> As for FTF meeting - I've offered to host at Microsoft, but really don't
> care.  I have also begun making plans to attend XTech, since it seems
> there will be a large set of the HTML WG people there.  I have one
> potential conflicting time block that I cannot change, from June 12th
> through the 26th.  Other than that time period, I will show up
> whenever/wherever, and you don't need to wait on me getting permission
> to join the WG to plan that.
> -Chris
> PS - Dan, I expect this will bounce off the public-html list since I'm
> not subscribed, please forward it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 6:27 AM
> To: Daniel Glazman; Chris Wilson
> Cc: public-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: face to face meeting host offers for the HTML WG?
> On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 06:04 +0100, Daniel Glazman wrote:
>> On 19/03/2007 23:49, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> > We're still short a co-chair, so I'm still not inclined
>> > to make group decisions of this sort, yet.
>> Dan, sorry to say, but this begins to be a big joke,
>> and unfortunately a very shocking one. Microsoft was associated
>> to the creation of this WG and whatever is blocking them right
>> now should have been a resolved problem at least months ago.
>> Because I discussed this with other members of the Group, I think
>> I will express many people's opinion here : could the W3C please ping
>> Microsoft, and use not only an email/phone call but also a needle ?
> Well, I flew down to Austin to talk to Chris in person a week
> ago.
> Chris, can you give us an ETA?
>> This is enough, and they should be here right now.
>> What was the extreme urgency to approve the charter before WHATWG
> review
>> and approval if the Group just cannot start because we still miss a
>> co-chairman who was chosen as co-chairman almost A YEAR AGO ?
>> </Daniel>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 17:45:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 March 2007 17:45:53 GMT