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

On May 5, 2007, at 10:54 PM, John Boyer wrote:

>
> 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.

Sorry, are these remarks related to each other? I said: "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 didn't appoint any editors nor claim any power to do so, it's a  
proposal for a middle ground between your position and mine. If  
you're going to ask me to compromise, then don't claim I have no  
standing to propose anything when I try to do so.

> Moreover, your objection to a co-editor from the Forms WG is  
> interesting because it presupposes failure of two W3C working  
> groups to collaborate.

Where does it presuppose that? I think the usual way for groups to  
collaborate in the W3C is not by editing each other's specs. The  
usual way is for them to review and comment on each other's specs.  
For example, the Web API WG collaborates with the SVG WG and  
similarly I hope it will collaborate with the HTML WG, but not  
through assigning editors to each other's specs, but by review to  
ensure requirements are satisfied.

For one working group to ask for a co-editor on another working  
group's spec is extremely unusual. Can you cite any cases where a W3C  
Working Group asked to co-edit another group's spec?

In fact, I think it is asking for co-editorship that presupposes a  
failure of collaboration. If two groups are working in good faith,  
then mutual review and response to comments should be sufficient to  
enable appropriate collaboration. Why are you assuming this standard  
approach to W3C cross-WG collaboration is not enough?

> 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?

I'm not seeing a compromise proposal from you, you appear to just be  
repeating your previous request. Since that request is no longer a  
Formal Objection, I don't think we need to discuss the matter further.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 06:44:45 UTC