Re: help navigating your HTML spec text objection?

[public-html readers, this thread continues from www-archive,
starting with
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007May/0016.html ]

On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 23:12 -0700, John Boyer wrote:
[...]
> My main issue is that I cannot be the task force, nor can I be the
> Forms WG part of the task force.  So I can't do the work of the task
> force in order to justify why the task force needs to do the technical
> work.  The proposal you put to vote was premature ...

I have some sympathy for the point that the question was premature;
some arguments have come to light only after the question was put,
which suggests re-opening the discussion and putting a possibly
amended question at a later date. I suspect that could be quite
costly, so I hope that it doesn't come to that. I hope we
can achieve consensus on this proposal after all...

In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007May/0016.html
I wrote:
> > John, your objection includes...
> > "... one of the XForms opponents even asked recently how
> > a particular
> > simple WF2 form would be written in XForms, so the objections
> > are not even based on firm knowledge of XForms but rather
> > on having developed WF2."
> > -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results
> > I'd appreciate a pointer to that message.

And you replied...

> "For the record, how would you do the above in XForms? " 
> 
> in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1720.html 

That's a message from Anne. Anne, I was under the impression that
you (among others) were fairly familiar with both XForms and WF2.
If that's not the case, then I'll have to re-think a few things.
I wonder if you could answer your own question.

John's reply continues...

> I spent a number of hours on the IRC today with hixie, maciej, anne
> and the crew. ...

Sounds like that was quite productive.

> Maciej complained today that my "objection" should be ignored because
> it doesn't cite technical reasons.  But that's because the vote is
> not being taken on a technical issue.  It is being taken on a
> process issue (should we preempt the work of the task force), and
> so my answer cited technical issues about the process. 

Indeed, the question is more a question about how we work than
a technical question. Since we currently have 11 HTML WG members
who have indicated interest in participating in the forms task force,
  http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tasks83/results
I wonder if you could see this decision as not preempting the
work of the task force, but working in parallel, John.

> [the question] shouldn't have been put to vote just because
> somebody proposed it because the proposal appears to run counter
> to both the statements and intent of the charters by
> preempting the technical work of the task force.
[...]
> The only way to reach real compromise is to put everyone on an equal
> footing  by staring with empty document and coming to terms on the
> requirements

In the joint task force on forms, everyone will
be on equal footing.

The question was not put just because somebody proposed it,
but because somebody proposed it and, after discussion, a
critical mass of support to do the work emerged. So while
there is some grounds for re-considering the question in light
of new arguments, it's not clear that the objection comes
with a viable alternative for how we work.


> ... the proposal appears to run counter to both the
> statements and intent of the charters by preempting the technical
> work of the task force.

You and I evidently disagree on whether the proposal is
consistent with our charter. As I said on 11 April:

[[
I take this as advice to the chair about a conflict between
this proposal and our charter. I'm not inclined to see it that way.
The charter says we're to deliver "A language evolved from HTML4"
   http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#deliverables
I consider this to be a proposal to skip from the HTML 4 spec to the
HTML 5 spec in one step.

You're free to argue against this proposal on the grounds that the
step is too big. And I'm interested to learn about alternative
ways to move forward.

But I'm not inclined to see the charter as a compelling argument
against this proposal.
]]
 -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0501.html

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tasks83/results


[...various points elided; see www-archive for John's full message...]
> I hope all of this helps at least clarify why my vote went the way it
> did.  I do sincerely hope that the chairs and/or the director are able
> to find a way to support this objection for now in the interest of
> getting the groups to really work together.

As chair, I see some grounds to support your objection, but it's
difficult to see whether re-considering this question is likely
to result in substantially more consensus.

The Director appoints not only the chairs of this WG, but also
technical participants. So this response is also representative
of the Director's position:
  W3C/Keio (Michael(tm) Smith) yes

Karl, I trust you and Michael have discussed that position.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 14:09:30 UTC