Re: [off] Re: Forms Task Force Charter Requirement

Maciej,

My prior understanding (from the initial chair's briefing given to me by 
Steve Bratt and TimBL) is that editors are selected by working group 
chairs.

That a vote was held in this case is perhaps reflective of the nature of 
this particular working group, which is quite atypical for W3C.

But I think that you should seek a co-chair appointment from the director 
before going much further with making offers such as you have done below.

Moreover, your objection to a co-editor from the Forms WG is interesting 
because it presupposes failure of two W3C working groups to collaborate. I 
prefer an innocent-until-proven-guilty approach.  I think it is 
interesting in the history of the W3C that there has even been a major 
specification (XML Signatures) that was developed with editors from two 
different standards organizations (W3C and IETF).  These are even more far 
removed from collaboration than two working groups *within* W3C, in part 
because they are bound by separate process documents and cultures.  Yet 
the result was successful.  The result here would only be unsuccessful if 
the participants decide to make it so.  What's your choice?

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





Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 
05/05/2007 05:42 PM

To
Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
cc
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, www-archive@w3.org
Subject
Re: [off] Re: Forms Task Force Charter Requirement







On May 5, 2007, at 5:24 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> Your other Formal Objection was to Dave and Ian as editors, and 
> your proposed alternative is to add someone from the Forms WG as a 
> co-editor for the Forms section. I also disagree with that, as I 
> think it would lead to a lot of arguing and slow down work; and 
> because I think editors should be chosen based on their 
> qualifications and experience, not based on being members of an 
> external Working Group.
>
> My proposed compromise for that is that the HTML WG and Forms WG 
> together in the Forms Task Force co-edit a Forms Architectural 
> Consistency Requirements document which XForms and HTML Forms both 
> then satisfy. I think this will accomplish the desire for closer 
> alignment with less likelihood of conflict delaying progress. Do 
> you have a different proposed compromise?

I noticed that you've withdrawn this objection. My offer above still 
stands, however.

Regards,
Maciej