With the appointment of Sam Ruby as co-chair of the W3C HTML WG and the expectedly more proactive stance he will take on issues:
IMHO, what’s needed is a chair that will take consensus whenever he (or she) can find it, and graciously accept defeat when that’s not possible. Again, not all of the goals are achievable by 2010. Whether they ever could have been or not is irrelevant, at this point it clearly is not the case.It is expected that we will see Ian Hickson step down as the editor of the W3C HTML5 specification, due to his inability to accept that he his control over HTML5 is diminished, though he will continue in his role as godhead of the WHAT WG teamsters.
....
I could go on, but the basic point is that if HTML5 were redefined to be the set of things over which we can come to rough consensus over the next 18 months or so, it would in all likelihood be (a) delivered on time, (b) be significantly smaller than the current working draft, and (c) as consistent as we collectively know how to make it with the full “2022” vision.
source: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/11/20/Half-Full
In the name of the father of HTML5
Posts
3 comments:
well, we can hope :-)
Mr last week would not respect you any less if you stepped down for 'personal reasons', but mrs last week may have concerns for your manhood if you were to take such a course of action.
It's ok, I'm secure in my manhood.
I've no reason to step down yet other than the unprofessional conduct of other members of the group — in particular, it seems I still have the support of the chairs, which is what really matters. Right now the benefits of HTML5 being co-developed in the W3C (namely, patent protection) outweigh the disadvantages (primarily the heavy influence of politics over technical objectiveness). If that were to change, though, I would certainly be happy to be rid of the constant appeals to authority prevalent in the W3C HTML WG.
So like I said, one can hope.
Post a Comment