Re: help navigating your HTML spec text objection?

John Boyer wrote:
> I believe that my objection reflects only a desire to reword the question 
> so that a further editor of the forms component can be appointed at a 
> later time without formal objections arising in the future based on this 
> questionnaire having already appointed the editors.

If the nomination of an additional editor occurs, I will be sure to base 
my formal objection on the merits of the individual, the justification 
(or lack thereof) for having an additional editor and the impact a that 
3rd editor would have upon the development of the spec.

> It should be easy to reword the question, or rather to ask two questions:
> "Should Ian Hickson be an editor of the next generation HTML 
> specification?"
> and
> "Should Dave Hyatt be an editor of the next generation HTML 
> specification?"

I do not see the benefit of splitting it into 2 questions.  If someone 
wanted to object to one of the editors, they could have voted no and 
clarified their vote by explaining which individual they object to and 
reasons why.  However, that did not happen.

> Ideally, you would also ask a third question along the lines of 
> "Should a Forms working group member be an editor of the forms component 
> of the next generation HTML specification?"

To that question, my formal objection would be that an editor should not 
be chosen based on their affiliation with a particular group.  Your 
intention seems to be entirely politically motivated.  Perhaps as a way 
to help give people in the Forms WG more say about what goes into the 
spec, or perhaps something else, I'm not really sure.

But regardless of why you think an editor should be from the Forms WG, 
editors should be chosen based on their own merits, such as experience, 
  ability to work with the other editors and overall ability to fulfil 
the role.

Lachlan Hunt

Received on Saturday, 5 May 2007 08:24:29 UTC