W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2014

Re: A proposal for revising the rules on TAG Participation

From: Marc Fawzi <marc.fawzi@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 19:50:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CACioZivMT_Nnopbucae5_TmeZT+A_LmJiJKekkUe_59shC4nAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Metaphor ping pong aside :) ... as a complete stranger to the TAG "scene"
can someone explain why MSFT wouldn't be happy to simply counter Google's
move and add another sponsored person of their own to the TAG? Why couldn't
Mozilla do that, too? There is no universal +1 problem. Every vendor can
afford to have another employee dedicated to TAG. It's well within their
means. I'm just trying to understand why would anyone assume that Google or
some other vendor could have an unfair advantage?

I say let Google have 10 or 15 people there. MSFT will do the same. And
Mozilla, too. I bet that they too could afford it if they had to. And that
would be good news for the TAG and the web. But the sad news is that there
aren't 15 people who are both talented enough and can get along with each
other. If anything this discussion demonstrates just that. So I think
realistically if you allow 2 per each vendor then each vendor will be happy
to contribute 2 and the web will be far happier for it.

The important thing is to keep thinking about the deeper issue: how the
browser mark is not designed to scale (2-3 big vendors and no one else with
a major share) It's a classical monopoly market. Don't worry about Google
dominating MSFT via the TAG. They've spent billions doing that and are
doing that with the full force of their resources. One more guy on the TAG
is not a means to tip the balance. It'd be like trying to lift an elephant
with a tooth pick as lever.

Marc




On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> On 07/16/2014 07:40 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
>
>> I wish to sell you elephant repellant. I know it works because there are
>> no elephants in the trees near my house, nor within 1000 miles! And
>> don't say you don't need any, because we cannot ignore harms caused by
>> branches breaking and dropping on people's heads. I submit that they
>> have been intentionally prevented in the San Francisco area thanks to my
>> liberal application of elephant repellant.
>>
>
> Does it work on 900 pound gorillas too?   ;)
>
> David
>
>
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 02:51:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:03 UTC