W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Call for Editors for Server-sent Events, Web Storage, and Web Workers

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:04:09 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimLoLS7rm3ETo+3bXYfzaFcA+DBWf0ahA_hsKJn@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi, Ian-
> Ian Hickson wrote (on 12/13/10 4:24 PM):
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Doug Schepers wrote:
>>>  This is an active call for editors for the Server-sent Events [1], Web
>>>  Storage [2], and Web Workers [3] specifications.  If you are interested
>>>  in becoming an editor, with all the rights and responsibilities that go
>>>  along with that, please respond on this thread or email us directly at
>>>  team-webapps@w3.org.
>> That's kinda funny since those drafts already all have an active editor.
> That's why I was explicit that we are looking for co-editors.  I hope that
> you are willing to work with other editors.
>>>  We appreciate and acknowledge the work the current editor, Ian Hickson,
>>>  has put into these specs, but he seems to have indicated that he does
>>>  not wish to be the one to drive them forward (which is understandable,
>>>  given his other commitments, such as the HTML5 spec).
>> I have done no such thing. I've only said I'm not interested in doing the
>> TR/ work.
> Ian, the Technical Report work is what W3C does.  You stated that you aren't
> interested in TR work [1], and that you are fine with having someone "take
> the draft and regularly publish a REC snapshot of it for patent policy
> purposes" [2]... and that's what an editor does.  I'm not sure what other
> way to move forward.  (And to be honest, the tone of your emails does not
> inspire confidence in your willingness to work with W3C's framework.)
> I'm not playing political games, and I'm not trying to insult you... I have
> been asked to move these specs along more rapidly, and I think that's a
> reasonable request.  Our expectation is that the specs will reach a stable
> state more quickly with an additional editor who can dedicate themselves
> more exclusively to the task.
> It may be that no-one is interested or has the time, or that a volunteer
> doesn't have the right skills to manage the task, in which case we have no
> conflict; if it happens that we do find someone to help out, then we can
> discuss the distribution of work.
> I'm not trying to shut you out of the process, and I respect any feedback
> you have on the subject.
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0865.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0866.html

I, too, thought that your email was stating that the aforementioned
documents had *no* editors, and that you were saying that Ian wasn't
willing to work on them.  If the idea is merely that you would like
co-editors who are willing to do the job of occasionally pushing TR
copies, that could have been communicated *much* better.

For example, an editor does *far* more than just publish snapshots and
deal with comments; I definitely don't have time to do all the work
that being an editor would entail.  You aren't asking for someone to
do all that though, you're just asking for someone to occasionally do
a bit of administrative work.  I have the bandwidth to help with that
if necessary.

Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 23:05:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:14 UTC