Sigh.
Daniel. Really.
It's 2007. When I said "spring of last year," I did in fact mean the 2006 Mandelieu meeting you refer to. There is not some back channel there.
I was not "chosen" then. Chris said, in effect, "hey, some people think you would be good." I believe my response was a chuckle, and a "thanks but I'm too busy." A month or two later, I emailed him and said "if the other potential WG members think I'm a good candidate, I guess I could make it happen." The W3C guys thought I'd be a good person to do it, I suppose, and the other browser vendors agreed to the choice of me. I'm still not "chosen" - all member companies get to vote. You're the only one that I know of who has objected. Again, I'm happy to be let off the hook, and I will be excited to participate.
You make it sound like the future of HTML is defined, because I was asked to be the initial chair of the HTML WG. That makes me really sad, and that you think I have some hidden agenda. You said "Just drop your current affiliation for a while" - I believe any chair should be, in effect, dropping their affiliation to perform those duties.
I HAVE read your post about why the WHAT-WG started, and I understand and agree, and I thought I echoed your sentiments. I get it. And I did not mean to say I was the only one who had told the W3C they were on the wrong track; but they did listen when I told them.
You said:
"Chairing a Working Group is not only about understanding the whole history of a spec or a technology, for god's sake. It's much, much more about being able to stabilize a group of organizations and individuals having often different goals and schedules, being able to control eruptions of proposals and counter-proposals, being able to stay in line with a schedule, being able to say "stop" when a discussion goes nowhere, and being able to "stop" to a Member that goes too far trying to push its own competitive advantage."
Abso-****ing-lutely. You have indeed captured what I think it most important about being a chair - the work that I think is critical, that I thought Lauren Wood did fairly well (other than perhaps the schedule bit, but I don't think that was her fault), and fundamentally the stuff that makes me cringe because it's a lot of work that I'd rather have someone else be responsible for. The only reason I didn't just refuse and stop there was because I AGREE with you - this WG has to do it right, or HTML at the W3C is a dead end. I think that would be bad for the web. If the WHAT-WG had been patent-policy-enabled from the beginning, perhaps I'd feel differently.
What do you think my day job is? I am a Program Manager at Microsoft. Stabilizing the project while remaining objective is pretty much what we do. I am not a developer (anymore) - I stopped being a developer nearly a decade ago, because I liked and was good at moving projects along. There are others out there who are much better choices for "someone who has good ideas about the future design of the HTML technology" than me - in fact, I suspect that you are one of those people, Daniel, and I KNOW Ian Hickson is. But I don't think that's what the chair needs to be, as you said.
You said that extensive knowledge of the tech and the market is not mandatory to chair this WG. I must disagree - I think it is, because I think not understanding the entirety of the industry is what sunk the XHTML-2-producing HTML WG - I think they failed to recognize a few fundamental tenets they should have had.
You said "A joke from you about Hixie is not unprofessional, it just shows that we're only human beings. What a scoop... I just don't see the problem here." Spoken like someone who has never been misquoted and put in a bad light in the mainstream press. Whatever. I'm not religious on this point. I'll just keep my joking mouth shut and be less personable, then.
You said "I just do not understand why the W3C does not list FIRST the organizations and people ready to join this WG, and tries only LATER to find the correct chairperson." Great, I'm all for that. Get a couple other potential WG members to agree, put my name on the email to the W3C along with theirs that this is the way it should work. I really don't care. I just want us to get the working group together and get working on evolving HTML.
You said "...IPR problems or not, I think Microsoft has no choice, will have no choice here." I want you to understand that Microsoft, and anyone else who might be a target for IP infringement suits, will have to have a choice here. IP cannot be taken lightly as a risk to open specifications and standards.
You also said "I just don't want the W3C to, again, follow its own ideas just "listening" to the external sources." There, I think you and I completely agree, and that's why I offered to help.
I would not even CONSIDER being chair of this working group if I thought it at all likely that Tim Berners-Lee would agree to take that role. I suspect that's about as likely as Bill Gates being the Microsoft representative. Do you want to be chair? Knowing that the IP concerns are in fact critical, and must be addressed in the way the WG develops specs, but otherwise we're pretty much on the same goals as far as I can tell?
-Chris
PS - you asked: "what the hell is the mce_href attribute ??? Your prose's links have such attributes (and empty class...)." - I don't know. I expect it's some weirdness with the community server s/w, or maybe it's a cut-and-paste artifact. I'll try to clean these posts up more by hand.
Comments
Anonymous
January 14, 2007
Tiny MCE text editor produces those mce_href attributes...Anonymous
January 17, 2007
It's pretty obvious you aren't wanted by the W3C as chair and we developers don't trust you as chair so why don't you just do us all a favor and give it up? Just like Microsoft and its browser, you are holding back web development in the interest of getting you and Microsoft's own way. In the interest of the internet community at large, please, go away!Anonymous
January 18, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 18, 2007
Stephen, Intentions should be backed up by actions and Microsoft and the IE group have not shown good intentions or actions for many, many years, despite the changes in IE7. If their intentions were good, there would be promises and guidelines on future improvements in this browser but the only thing given is vague at best.Anonymous
January 18, 2007
Rob, it is simply not possible to make those sorts of specific promises. Sorry.Anonymous
January 18, 2007
Then you can't promise to be good. Without timelines or guidelines or "What we're working on now..." statements, we only have the past to base your future work on and the past is no indication of good performance. Pull your name out of the hat now, Chris. Someone said you don't want to do it anyway so we don't need a reluctant leader either.Anonymous
January 18, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 18, 2007
The fact that the discussion with Daniel is out here in the open gives me more confidence about the "new" HTML WG and you as chair than anything else. I also think that the compliance (or not) of IE is irrelevant to how good a chair Chris is/will be. I presonally tend to agree with a lot of the Apple guys' comments and think that how those suggestions are handled will say a lot about the new WG. Regards, Rob... (another one!)Anonymous
January 18, 2007
Chris, your chairmanship is one thing, and again I know who you are, what you think, how you act. I know you. I also know how work companies ; that's not a negative comment, that's just how it goes. My other comments about the Charter still stand, and I still think this Charter is a bad one as it is. Well not that bad, only not enough or unrealistic. I have raised a few points that are important enough, from my perspective, to trigger a negative vote. And it seems that Apple, looking at Surfin'Safari weblog, agrees with me on these points.Anonymous
January 19, 2007
Maybe the question for you, Chris, is to know how do you think you will be the most useful to the industry: as the highly regarded Microsoft representative to the HTML WG, or as an always suspicious chair? During your many years as representative, everybody saw in you the best possible advocate to bring good practices inside Microsoft. Now as a chair, and there is absolutely nothing personal in it, you - in spite of all your goodwill - cannot prevent the lack of credibility of your employer from tainting the appreciation that a large number of the actors and observers will have of your work. In addition, your replacement as Microsoft representative will be under pressure to demonstrate the same qualities of a good player that you have shown, knowing that every interaction between the two of you will be under intense scrutiny, if not outright distrust, from the community. It's unfair, I agree, but it cannot be ignored.Anonymous
January 19, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 19, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 22, 2007
Spec'ing the spec: More cooks may not always spoil the broth, but they do usually require more time to choose what to make for dinner. The new W3C HTML Working Group will attempt to reconcile and modernize HTML, XML, XHTML. The process still needs someAnonymous
January 25, 2007
Although I do not know Chris Wilson in person, I feel I must post my experiences. I do not like prejudice very much, so I'll try to drop some facts into the picture here. I attend (as an observer/expert) the C++ committee meetings for several years now. Our convener is Herb Sutter from Microsoft. There are other regular attendees from Microsoft and companies strongly related to them. I list my experiences: They are
- helpful
- professional
- hard working and personally very nice people. I have seen so far absolutely no obstruction from them, or any ways of pushing any agenda - other than making sure that 0x in C++0x won't be standing for hexadecimal digit... IOWs: to keep our schedule - which is in fact supported by all the members. I can only say that Microsoft is more than generous with this ISO WG. They have organized several meetings and do financially contribute to many of those that others organize. Also, in these last years Microsoft has shown exceptional efforts (also means: exceptionally successful ones) in getting their own product closer to the standard. So my opinion is that treating Chris Wilson with prejudice just because he works for Microsoft leads nowhere y'all would like to go. Looking at the facts (like the charter), making it realistic, making sure that balance is preserved (like the Apple comments do) can help. Listening to Chris Wilson, getting his facts, intentions etc. is also a good idea. Judging based on reality is always a good option. Judgment based on fear leads to no progress. IMHO the important task is to get the Charter right. Get it realistic and get it conform to the reality of the needs of the users. These both are important. Requirements are based on what users need. And those aren't the developers of the engines. Of course, realistic goals can only be set by taking into account what can be done, so when it comes to prioritizing, those designers are an important factor. I am writing this post from Linux using Firefox. I am programming on Solaris/Linux for many years now. So I am in no way a Microsoft addict or fan. However I have several years of experience working/mingling with Microsoft people at conferences and at the ISO C++ WG meetings. I can only tell you that NONE of the listed concerns have happened in the ISO WG21! None! And when Herb became the convener, MS was known about its Visual C++ 6.0 compiler as being incredibly bad at conforming to the standard. Today MS is a lot closer to conforming and Herb has make a great contribution for the C++ user community by making this sure and to the ISO C++ WG by being a professional and caring convener. Sorry for the long windedness, I luck the ability to be short. :-(
Anonymous
February 15, 2007
This post is about the rechartering of the HTML Working Group, and AOL's stance on the subject. Cross posted from dev.aol.comAnonymous
March 15, 2007
Well, I think Chris will be a good chair. I said as much to W3C when they were first talking about an HTML working group. (Sorry Chris). A working group without a credible chair is in trouble. And the HTML group is a really really important one. I am a chair of a W3C group, and I know what fun it isn't. I am glad to have Dan Connolly as a co-chair. He is a no-nonsense guy who wants things that the world will use, and doesn't mind who he is telling that they are wrong, from Microsoft to my favourite blogger. Two people is probably barely enough for a group like this, and Chris and Dan are two of the best I could have hoped for. I am not a great fan of Microsoft's years without implementing basic standards, nor terribly upset because they have spent time on making money for themselves and others at the expense of cleaning up some things I thought were problems. They are a company, and what they do is make money providing goods and services to people. It seems a lot of people still believe they are getting something worth all that money, so good luck to them. I sincerely hope that Microsoft does indeed make implementing more of HTML a priority, like I hope that they get SVG into the browser. But then, I hope that I win the lotto too. Since I buy neither lottery tickets nor any Microsoft software, I will just go on hoping and leaving it to their customers to put pressure on. I have seen Chris at work in standards (he was there when I first got involved in W3C a decade ago, and one of the people that spurred me to stay involved). I have seen other Microsoft representatives, and like any other large company some of their people were better than others. I hope that another representative from Microsoft does as good a job as I would expect Chris to do. Anyway, enough whining already. It's been a long time - let's get on with the work. I wish you all the best as chair, and hope the group manages to find a reasonable way forward with what is pretty important part of our world. (Hey Chris, have you formally joined the group yet?!)Anonymous
September 26, 2007
I am programming on Solaris/Linux for years now. So I am in no way a Microsoft addict or fan. Take it easy.Anonymous
October 08, 2007
sincerely hope that Microsoft does indeed make implementing more of HTML a priority, like I hope that they get SVG into the browser. But then, I hope that I win the lotto too. Since I buy neither lottery tickets nor any Microsoft software, I will just go on hoping and leaving it to their customers to put pressure onAnonymous
October 18, 2007
i like this article ... i thing same..Anonymous
November 15, 2007
A working group without a credible chair is in trouble. And the HTML group is a really really important one. I am a chair of a W3C group, and I know what fun it isn't. I am glad to have Dan Connolly as a co-chair. He is a no-nonsense guy who wants things that the world will use, and doesn't mind who he is telling that they are wrong, from Microsoft to my favourite blogger. Two people is probably barely enough for a group like this, and Chris and Dan are two of the best I could have hoped for.Anonymous
November 15, 2007
I am not a great fan of Microsoft's years without implementing basic standards, nor terribly upset because they have spent time on making money for themselves and others at the expense of cleaning up some things I thought were problems. They are a company, and what they do is make money providing goods and services to people. It seems a lot of people still believe they are getting something worth all that money, so good luck to them.Anonymous
January 10, 2008
I am programming on Solaris/Linux for years now. So I am in no way a Microsoft addict or fan. Take it easy.Anonymous
January 19, 2008
It's pretty obvious you aren't wanted by the W3C as chair and we developers don't trust you as chair so why don't you just do us all a favor and give it up? Just like Microsoft and its browser, you are holding back web development in the interest of getting you and Microsoft's own way. In the interest of the internet community at large, please, go away!Anonymous
January 19, 2008
Then you can't promise to be good. Without timelines or guidelines or "What we're working on now..." statements, we only have the past to base your future work on and the past is no indication of good performance.Anonymous
January 19, 2008
Stephen, Intentions should be backed up by actions and Microsoft and the IE group have not shown good intentions or actions for many, many years, despite the changes in IE7. If their intentions were good, there would be promises and guidelines on future improvements in this browser but the only thing given is vague at best.Anonymous
January 19, 2008
A working group without a credible chair is in trouble. And the HTML group is a really really important one. I am a chair of a W3C group, and I know what fun it isn't. I am glad to have Dan Connolly as a co-chair. He is a no-nonsense guy who wants things that the world will use, and doesn't mind who he is telling that they are wrong, from Microsoft to my favourite blogger. Two people is probably barely enough for a group like this, and Chris and Dan are two of the best I could have hoped for.Anonymous
January 19, 2008
Maybe the question for you, Chris, is to know how do you think you will be the most useful to the industry: as the highly regarded Microsoft representative to the HTML WG, or as an always suspicious chair? During your many years as representative, everybody saw in you the best possible advocate to bring good practices inside Microsoft. Now as a chair, and there is absolutely nothing personal in it, you - in spite of all your goodwill - cannot prevent the lack of credibility of your employer from tainting the appreciation that a large number of the actors and observers will have of your work. In addition, your replacement as Microsoft representative will be under pressure to demonstrate the same qualities of a good player that you have shown, knowing that every interaction between the two of you will be under intense scrutiny, if not outright distrust, from the community.Anonymous
January 19, 2008
Maybe the question for you, Chris, is to know how do you think you will be the most useful to the industry: as the highly regarded Microsoft representative to the HTML WG, or as an always suspicious chair? During your many years as representative, everybody saw in you the best possible advocate to bring good practices inside Microsoft. Now as a chair, and there is absolutely nothing personal in it, you - in spite of all your goodwill - cannot prevent the lack of credibility of your employer from tainting the appreciation that a large number of the actors and observers will have of your work. In addition, your replacement as Microsoft representative will be under pressure to demonstrate the same qualities of a good player that you have shown, knowing that every interaction between the two of you will be under intense scrutiny, if not outright distrust, from the community.Anonymous
January 19, 2008
IMHO the important task is to get the Charter right. Get it realistic and get it conform to the reality of the needs of the users. These both are important. Requirements are based on what users need. And those aren't the developers of the engines. Of course, realistic goals can only be set by taking into account what can be done, so when it comes to prioritizing, those designers are an important factor.Anonymous
January 19, 2008
I think that most people will let the M-word fog their vision at first. I think you should do the job because you want to, not just because you were asked. That being said, after reading 4 different blogs on the appointment I think you will probably do the best job possible. Now, you are aware of the huge desire people have for what the new WHAT-WG will produce and if it will be something truely innovative AND addaptable.Anonymous
February 29, 2008
I am programming on Solaris/Linux for years now. So I am in no way a Microsoft addict or fan.Anonymous
March 03, 2008
Sinema Dunyası Www.sinematurkey.blogcu.comAnonymous
March 03, 2008
Aragıgınız herşey www.harikabisey.blogcu.comAnonymous
October 07, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 23, 2009
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 23, 2009
Then you can't promise to be good. Without timelines or guidelines or "What we're working on now..." statements, we only have the past to base your future work on and the past is no indication of good performance.Anonymous
May 16, 2009
Then you can't promise to be good. Without timelines or guidelines or "What we're working on now..." statements, we only have the past to base your future work on and the past is no indication of good performance. Pull your name out of the hat now, Chris. Someone said you don't want to do it anyway so we don't need a reluctant leader either.Anonymous
July 07, 2009
It's pretty obvious you aren't wanted by the W3C as chair and we developers don't trust you as chair so why don't you just do us all a favor and give it up? Just like Microsoft and its browser, you are holding back web development in the interest of getting you and Microsoft's own way. In the interest of the internet community at large, please, go away!