- From: H�kon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:44:56 +0200
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Also sprach Dan Connolly: > > 2) Some candidates on the list may be objectionable to various > > parties in the group, just as the team of "just Ian Hickson" is > > apparently objectionable to you and Chris. By the way, I'd like to > > know the nature of the objection. Why do you guys think this will be > > a problem, and are your objections being made as chairs, or as > > representatives of your respective organizations? If the latter, then > > I think we have a serious process problem here. Any other > > organization that objected to a nominated editor would have to make > > their case to the chairs and to the working group, but you guys are > > bypassing that. > > Perhaps there's a time and a place for open discussion > of the objections, but actually, I hope it doesn't come > to that; they're not technical in nature. I prefer to > focus on the options for going forward. In the past, Microsoft has pressured W3C in private to add its own people to the list of editors [1]. The arguments were non-technical; Microsoft didn't contribute much technically but wanted to be seen as leading the web. Is history repeating itself? I hope not. A good way to avoid being out under pressure is to require that all proposals and objections are sent to this list. [1] http://news.com.com/Microsofts+standards+choice/2010-1013_3-6161285.html -h&kon H�kon Wium Lie CTO ��e�� howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 13:46:04 UTC