- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:10:43 +0100
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Jonas Sicking wrote: > ... > I think that if we make the order something like > > 1) Find someone else to deal with portion X > 2) Verify that this person understands the HTML 5 charter and the HTML > design principles and agrees to honor them. > 3) Let this new person publish a draft for this portion > 4) Verify that the new draft defines X as well or better than what is > in the HTML 5 spec today. > 5) Verify that the new draft is being edited as effectively as portion X > in HTML 5 spec is today by Ian. > 6) Remove the relevant sections from the HTML5 spec. > > we can be fairly sure that there is a net gain. Though of course the > bigger portion X is the more sure we will have to be that the editor > won't drop the job on the floor as has happened several times in the > past once the editors realized the scope of the work involved. Again: the # of authors is orthogonal to the # of specs. Multiple authors can edit a single spec (with coordination), but also a single author can edit multiple specs. Furthermore, the checklist you suggest seems to be written with the intent of discouraging anybody coming up. The working group should make a decision whether a split is feasible and a good thing to do, and then should select one or multiple editors. But "go ahead, waste your time, until we'll tell you that you're not a second Ian after all" will not fly. IMHO. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 14:46:01 UTC