RE: Case for/data about elections

Jeff,

> We've been attempting to fight "complicated and fragile" through modularity. 

Modularity done this way risks taking a big complicated thing and chopping sit into a number of smaller (still complicated) things.

>  Many of the major workgroups (e.g. CSS, WebApps, even now HTML) are looking to increase modularity 

Organizational structure constrains modularity. If the question is the division of the platform into modules -- whether some functionality belongs in HTML or belongs in CSS, for example -- then this isn't something the working groups can effectively manage, because the group is already selected to the boundary it has.    Does it belong it all? Working groups are self-selected to favor the technology's deployment.

> in the hope that it leads to clarity.

"clarity" is one of the weakest things to look for; say simplicity, performance, security, reliability, extensibility....

>  I don't know if we are doing it well enough

Who is the "we" who is doing "it" ? Isn't that the topic of this exchange?

> or if this is even the best approach to fight "complicated and fragile". 

Encouraging modularity within working groups is OK but it won't get you there.

The design of how a system is composed of modules and how those modules interact -- that's what I usually call "architecture", and what I'd hoped the TAG would have managed. Another major source of discontinuities is the jagged boundaries between W3C, IETF, ECMA/TC39, ISO specs, especially non-web applications.

To the point of the thread: any election/selection process discussion should focus first on getting groups that can effectively manage the web architecture and the process for evolving it.

Received on Monday, 26 May 2014 21:32:56 UTC