Re: 'XSL-FO task force'? [Was: Revise group description?]

On Wed, January 8, 2014 12:26 pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 01/08/2014 06:15 AM, Tony Graham wrote:
...
>> Since the W3C seems to like task forces these days, we could be open and
>> still be about XSL-FO if we have a 'XSL-FO task force' for as many as
>> will
>> while continuing to talk about crystal goblets, windows, etc., as
>> general
>> business.
...
> I dislike the term "task force" just about as much as "secretariat" or
> "committee". But I guess as a collective noun for a group of people who
> accidentally find themselves sort of moving in the same rough direction,
> "working group" is positive...although the collective noun "quarrel"
> applied to a bunch of people is often apposite. :-)
>
> I just had to work all that in too. :-)

That's fine.  'Task force' comes from groping around for a label for how
to say it if we have a stated secondary interest rather than the current
stated primary interest in XSL-FO.

> I find the recent flurry of great posts by relatively numerous amounts
> of people with varied backgrounds to be great. There is finally some
> discussion momentum here. I'd draw on what's been said to say that
> XSL-FO should not be the single focus of this group, and that if there
> were any splitting of people in this group by interest, that it be
> informal...along the lines of "these folks have coder backgrounds and
> are interested in this", and "these folks have mainly BA-type
> backgrounds and are interested in this", and fairly frequently everyone
> commingles and bruits.
>
> So no further formality.

Hopefully no-one's minded mention of Saxon API changes between versions,
but there were various previous messages saying developers, Publishing
folk, and/or CSS folk could be more interested in this group if...

I don't want to jettison XSL-FO from the description in the off-chance
that doing so will attract more people, but we haven't had more than
bursts of discussion while it has been front-and-center.

I was groping for a label so I could put that as an option/alternative in
a poll/survey for what we do want to do.  I do intend to advertise the
poll/survey outside the CG, so obviously one of the other questions would
be "Are you a member of the CG?" (with attendant headaches if there's a
significant difference between overall answers from members and from a
larger number of non-members, but that hasn't happened yet and might not
happen).

Perhaps just a convention of a '[FO]' prefix in emails could be enough for
people uninterested in XSL-FO to not read those messages.

Regards,


Tony.

Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 13:52:32 UTC