Re: help navigating your HTML spec text objection?

Lachlan,

Not only did I already withdraw objection to #3, but...

LH: 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. 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. 

JB: My motivation is that the Forms WG has the most experience developing 
and deploying forms,
and would be particularly valuable in helping understand XForms 
architecture and apply it to help
achieve disambiguated spec wordings regarding how HTML5 forms maps to and 
can scale up to
XForms.  But that assumes that the HTML WG collaborates with the Forms WG 
on HTML5 forms,
which is certainly what I believed the charters compelled us to do 
(whether or not you believe it).
More generally, I am interested in having requirements drive solutions 
rather than the other way
around, so that we can first ensure that the requirements really are the 
requirements and how to 
weight them relative to each other.  Seems the best way to avoid breaking 
the future of the web.

John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> 
05/05/2007 01:24 AM

To
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
cc
public-html@w3.org
Subject
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
http://lachy.id.au/