答复: Call for Editors for Server-sent Events, Web Storage, and Web Workers
Hi Doug and All， I am Pan Songbai, from Chinaunicom which is one of the largest telecom company in China， now I am studying key-Vale database and interested in W3C spec， so I want to become an editor，Thanks. Best regards, Cooper /* 潘松柏 * 中国联通集团研究院 * Tel: 010-6879-9587; 186-0110-3003 * Mail: pan...@chinaunicom.cn */ -邮件原件- 发件人: member-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:member-webapps-requ...@w3.org] 代表 Doug Schepers 发送时间: 2010年12月14日 5:16 收件人: public-webapps@w3.org 主题: Call for Editors for Server-sent Events, Web Storage, and Web Workers Hi, Folks- This is an active call for editors for the Server-sent Events [1], Web Storage [2], and Web Workers [3] specifications. If you are interested in becoming an editor, with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with that, please respond on this thread or email us directly at team-weba...@w3.org. Previously, Art Barstow asked for an analysis of the current status of these specs, with regards to LC comments, implementations, test suites, and so forth; these are typically performed and coordinated by the editor of a spec, and it's appropriate that someone doing this work would get editor credit for their effort. These specs have not made progress along the Recommendation track in some time, and we want to move them forward to a stable state. We appreciate and acknowledge the work the current editor, Ian Hickson, has put into these specs, but he seems to have indicated that he does not wish to be the one to drive them forward (which is understandable, given his other commitments, such as the HTML5 spec). Ideally, we would prefer that Ian stay on as active co-editor, but if the logistics don't work out, we may ask the new co-editor to take on the sole responsibility for finalizing the spec, including processing comments from the WebApps WG, and from the community at large. In the earlier thread, there was a discussion on the logistics and differing philosophies on spec development; without dwelling on that topic too much, it's worth stating that stability of a spec is a goal not only for licensing commitments, but also as a matter of coordination with multiple implementers, and for development of the entire infrastructure around a technology, including tests, tutorials, script libraries, and cutting-edge usage, some of which happens within W3C, and some of which happens in the wild. We have an obligation to our community to make clear and consistent statements on the stability of our documents, because it costs real time, effort, and money to invest in these technologies. Secure and efficient specifications are obviously the most important goal, but pushing out deadlines and changing the spec without clear progress toward a stable state is frustrating and troublesome for our community. There is a difference in strategies between Ian's stated approach and W3C's; both are valid, but W3C has chosen to publish stable snapshots of specifications in the form of Recommendations, and to release updates to those technologies as subsequent editions, or to build upon them with new versions or levels. This is the expectation in the WebApps WG, so we are calling for active co-editors who will dedicate themselves to the task of driving these specs to a stable state in a reasonable and predictable timeframe. [1] Server-sent Events http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-eventsource-20091222/ [2] Web Storage http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webstorage-20091222/ [3] Web Workers http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-workers-20091222/ Regards- Doug Schepers, W3C Team Contact Art Barstow (Nokia), Co-Chair Charles McCathieNevile (Opera), Co-Chair,
Re: Call for Editors for Server-sent Events, Web Storage, and Web Workers
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Doug Schepersschep...@w3.org wrote: But we are looking for more than someone to just push TR copies, we want someone who (like Ian) understands the issues, and knows how to help drive progress through consensus and technical expertise, and who can dedicate themselves to the task. Can we get a bullet-point listing of the responsibilities for the desired position? I've gone back and reread the OP, and I don't understand what exactly you're asking for. I'm sure the responsibilities are hidden there, but the wordiness makes my eyes slide right over them. Doug - thanks for starting this thread. Tab - Doug indicated some of the tasks in the head of this thread: [[ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0919.html Previously, Art Barstow asked for an analysis of the current status of these specs, with regards to LC comments, implementations, test suites, and so forth; these are typically performed and coordinated by the editor of a spec, and it's appropriate that someone doing this work would get editor credit for their effort. ]] The thread Doug alludes to above included some additional tasks: [[ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0860.html All of these specs have a Bugzilla component for issue and comment tracking, all are included in the WHATWG issue tracker at [Issues], all of the specs have changed since their LC was published and all of the specs had at least one comment submitted against the LC via public-webapps. With respect to does a spec need to return to LC or can it advance to Candidate?, Section 7.4.6 of W3C process says: ... Since Hixie is active on HTML, perhaps someone else is willing to pick one of these LCs and to review the issues, bugs, diffs, etc. and propose the next step . [Issues] http://www.whatwg.org/issues/ ]] I realize the W3C process can be a bit heavy weight, especially regaring LC comment processing and if you or anyone else can help, that would be great. I don't think it is fair or reasonable to expect Hixie to do all of the work required to move a spec through the W3C process. -Art Barstow
Call for Editors for Server-sent Events, Web Storage, and Web Workers
Hi, Folks- This is an active call for editors for the Server-sent Events [1], Web Storage [2], and Web Workers [3] specifications. If you are interested in becoming an editor, with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with that, please respond on this thread or email us directly at team-weba...@w3.org. Previously, Art Barstow asked for an analysis of the current status of these specs, with regards to LC comments, implementations, test suites, and so forth; these are typically performed and coordinated by the editor of a spec, and it's appropriate that someone doing this work would get editor credit for their effort. These specs have not made progress along the Recommendation track in some time, and we want to move them forward to a stable state. We appreciate and acknowledge the work the current editor, Ian Hickson, has put into these specs, but he seems to have indicated that he does not wish to be the one to drive them forward (which is understandable, given his other commitments, such as the HTML5 spec). Ideally, we would prefer that Ian stay on as active co-editor, but if the logistics don't work out, we may ask the new co-editor to take on the sole responsibility for finalizing the spec, including processing comments from the WebApps WG, and from the community at large. In the earlier thread, there was a discussion on the logistics and differing philosophies on spec development; without dwelling on that topic too much, it's worth stating that stability of a spec is a goal not only for licensing commitments, but also as a matter of coordination with multiple implementers, and for development of the entire infrastructure around a technology, including tests, tutorials, script libraries, and cutting-edge usage, some of which happens within W3C, and some of which happens in the wild. We have an obligation to our community to make clear and consistent statements on the stability of our documents, because it costs real time, effort, and money to invest in these technologies. Secure and efficient specifications are obviously the most important goal, but pushing out deadlines and changing the spec without clear progress toward a stable state is frustrating and troublesome for our community. There is a difference in strategies between Ian's stated approach and W3C's; both are valid, but W3C has chosen to publish stable snapshots of specifications in the form of Recommendations, and to release updates to those technologies as subsequent editions, or to build upon them with new versions or levels. This is the expectation in the WebApps WG, so we are calling for active co-editors who will dedicate themselves to the task of driving these specs to a stable state in a reasonable and predictable timeframe. [1] Server-sent Events http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-eventsource-20091222/ [2] Web Storage http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webstorage-20091222/ [3] Web Workers http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-workers-20091222/ Regards- Doug Schepers, W3C Team Contact Art Barstow (Nokia), Co-Chair Charles McCathieNevile (Opera), Co-Chair,
Re: Call for Editors for Server-sent Events, Web Storage, and Web Workers
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Doug Schepers wrote: This is an active call for editors for the Server-sent Events [1], Web Storage [2], and Web Workers [3] specifications. If you are interested in becoming an editor, with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with that, please respond on this thread or email us directly at team-weba...@w3.org. That's kinda funny since those drafts already all have an active editor. We appreciate and acknowledge the work the current editor, Ian Hickson, has put into these specs, but he seems to have indicated that he does not wish to be the one to drive them forward (which is understandable, given his other commitments, such as the HTML5 spec). I have done no such thing. I've only said I'm not interested in doing the TR/ work. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: Call for Editors for Server-sent Events, Web Storage, and Web Workers
Hi, Ian- Ian Hickson wrote (on 12/13/10 4:24 PM): On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Doug Schepers wrote: This is an active call for editors for the Server-sent Events [1], Web Storage [2], and Web Workers [3] specifications. If you are interested in becoming an editor, with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with that, please respond on this thread or email us directly at team-weba...@w3.org. That's kinda funny since those drafts already all have an active editor. That's why I was explicit that we are looking for co-editors. I hope that you are willing to work with other editors. We appreciate and acknowledge the work the current editor, Ian Hickson, has put into these specs, but he seems to have indicated that he does not wish to be the one to drive them forward (which is understandable, given his other commitments, such as the HTML5 spec). I have done no such thing. I've only said I'm not interested in doing the TR/ work. Ian, the Technical Report work is what W3C does. You stated that you aren't interested in TR work [1], and that you are fine with having someone take the draft and regularly publish a REC snapshot of it for patent policy purposes [2]... and that's what an editor does. I'm not sure what other way to move forward. (And to be honest, the tone of your emails does not inspire confidence in your willingness to work with W3C's framework.) I'm not playing political games, and I'm not trying to insult you... I have been asked to move these specs along more rapidly, and I think that's a reasonable request. Our expectation is that the specs will reach a stable state more quickly with an additional editor who can dedicate themselves more exclusively to the task. It may be that no-one is interested or has the time, or that a volunteer doesn't have the right skills to manage the task, in which case we have no conflict; if it happens that we do find someone to help out, then we can discuss the distribution of work. I'm not trying to shut you out of the process, and I respect any feedback you have on the subject. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0865.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0866.html Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG, WebApps, and Web Events WGs
Re: Call for Editors for Server-sent Events, Web Storage, and Web Workers
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote: Hi, Ian- Ian Hickson wrote (on 12/13/10 4:24 PM): On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Doug Schepers wrote: This is an active call for editors for the Server-sent Events [1], Web Storage [2], and Web Workers [3] specifications. If you are interested in becoming an editor, with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with that, please respond on this thread or email us directly at team-weba...@w3.org. That's kinda funny since those drafts already all have an active editor. That's why I was explicit that we are looking for co-editors. I hope that you are willing to work with other editors. We appreciate and acknowledge the work the current editor, Ian Hickson, has put into these specs, but he seems to have indicated that he does not wish to be the one to drive them forward (which is understandable, given his other commitments, such as the HTML5 spec). I have done no such thing. I've only said I'm not interested in doing the TR/ work. Ian, the Technical Report work is what W3C does. You stated that you aren't interested in TR work [1], and that you are fine with having someone take the draft and regularly publish a REC snapshot of it for patent policy purposes [2]... and that's what an editor does. I'm not sure what other way to move forward. (And to be honest, the tone of your emails does not inspire confidence in your willingness to work with W3C's framework.) I'm not playing political games, and I'm not trying to insult you... I have been asked to move these specs along more rapidly, and I think that's a reasonable request. Our expectation is that the specs will reach a stable state more quickly with an additional editor who can dedicate themselves more exclusively to the task. It may be that no-one is interested or has the time, or that a volunteer doesn't have the right skills to manage the task, in which case we have no conflict; if it happens that we do find someone to help out, then we can discuss the distribution of work. I'm not trying to shut you out of the process, and I respect any feedback you have on the subject. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0865.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0866.html I, too, thought that your email was stating that the aforementioned documents had *no* editors, and that you were saying that Ian wasn't willing to work on them. If the idea is merely that you would like co-editors who are willing to do the job of occasionally pushing TR copies, that could have been communicated *much* better. For example, an editor does *far* more than just publish snapshots and deal with comments; I definitely don't have time to do all the work that being an editor would entail. You aren't asking for someone to do all that though, you're just asking for someone to occasionally do a bit of administrative work. I have the bandwidth to help with that if necessary. ~TJ
Re: Call for Editors for Server-sent Events, Web Storage, and Web Workers
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Doug Schepers wrote: Ian, the Technical Report work is what W3C does. I'm not sure how to interpret this. Do you mean that's the work W3C staff does? Or that's the work that the consortium is set up to foster? Neither is presumably true: W3C staff aren't the ones who do the TR busywork, since otherwise you wouldn't be asking for an editor to do it, and the goal of the consortium is hopefully not to publish TR/ drafts, it's presumably to get interoperability on the Web. You stated that you aren't interested in TR work [1], and that you are fine with having someone take the draft and regularly publish a REC snapshot of it for patent policy purposes [2]... and that's what an editor does. If that's what you're looking for, my apologies. That was not how I interpreted your e-mail. It's certainly not what the term editor means in general, though. What you describe is more of a secretarial role. I'm not sure what other way to move forward. It's not clear to me that your definition of forward makes sense. :-) I have been asked to move these specs along more rapidly, and I think that's a reasonable request. Publishing on the TR/ page does nothing to move the specs in any direction, let alone forward. Our expectation is that the specs will reach a stable state more quickly with an additional editor who can dedicate themselves more exclusively to the task. Publishing on the TR/ page does nothing for stability. The most productive work one could do to help the stability of these specs is writing test suites for them. Anyway, I'm fine if someone wants to do the secretarial work of publishing the spec on the TR/ page -- if anyone wants to help with that I'm more than happy to work with them to get that done on a regular basis. It's very easy work. More useful, however, would be someone to drive a test suite. I'd be very happy to help someone with that too, but that's much more work. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: Call for Editors for Server-sent Events, Web Storage, and Web Workers
Hi, Ian- I'm sorry if it wasn't clear that we hope to keep you on as co-editor, if you are willing and able. I simply don't have time (nor, frankly, am I interested) in having a political or philosophical debate about what an editor is or isn't, or what makes a spec stable, or whether W3C is structured in the right way to meet any given aim. That conversation would distract and detract from the pragmatic goal of finding additional co-editors for these specs. We are not looking for someone to do mere secretarial work, we are looking for people with a stated interest to work within the W3C process to move these specs along the W3C Recommendation track at a timely pace. Helping coordinate test suites is part of that, as is making changes to the spec based on requirements, implementation experience, and working group decisions. So, I repeat: anyone interested in helping co-edit these specs, please contact the chairs or myself, or say so on this list. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG, WebApps, and Web Events WGs Ian Hickson wrote (on 12/13/10 6:05 PM): On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Doug Schepers wrote: Ian, the Technical Report work is what W3C does. I'm not sure how to interpret this. Do you mean that's the work W3C staff does? Or that's the work that the consortium is set up to foster? Neither is presumably true: W3C staff aren't the ones who do the TR busywork, since otherwise you wouldn't be asking for an editor to do it, and the goal of the consortium is hopefully not to publish TR/ drafts, it's presumably to get interoperability on the Web. You stated that you aren't interested in TR work [1], and that you are fine with having someone take the draft and regularly publish a REC snapshot of it for patent policy purposes [2]... and that's what an editor does. If that's what you're looking for, my apologies. That was not how I interpreted your e-mail. It's certainly not what the term editor means in general, though. What you describe is more of a secretarial role. I'm not sure what other way to move forward. It's not clear to me that your definition of forward makes sense. :-) I have been asked to move these specs along more rapidly, and I think that's a reasonable request. Publishing on the TR/ page does nothing to move the specs in any direction, let alone forward. Our expectation is that the specs will reach a stable state more quickly with an additional editor who can dedicate themselves more exclusively to the task. Publishing on the TR/ page does nothing for stability. The most productive work one could do to help the stability of these specs is writing test suites for them. Anyway, I'm fine if someone wants to do the secretarial work of publishing the spec on the TR/ page -- if anyone wants to help with that I'm more than happy to work with them to get that done on a regular basis. It's very easy work. More useful, however, would be someone to drive a test suite. I'd be very happy to help someone with that too, but that's much more work.
Re: Call for Editors for Server-sent Events, Web Storage, and Web Workers
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote: Hi, Ian- I'm sorry if it wasn't clear that we hope to keep you on as co-editor, if you are willing and able. I simply don't have time (nor, frankly, am I interested) in having a political or philosophical debate about what an editor is or isn't, or what makes a spec stable, or whether W3C is structured in the right way to meet any given aim. That conversation would distract and detract from the pragmatic goal of finding additional co-editors for these specs. We are not looking for someone to do mere secretarial work, we are looking for people with a stated interest to work within the W3C process to move these specs along the W3C Recommendation track at a timely pace. Helping coordinate test suites is part of that, as is making changes to the spec based on requirements, implementation experience, and working group decisions. So, I repeat: anyone interested in helping co-edit these specs, please contact the chairs or myself, or say so on this list. Dude, it's not a philosophical argument. It really is important to frame your request appropriately. You aren't looking for someone to edit the spec, you're looking for someone to push snapshots and do a little bit of other work. Secretarial is a good adjective. Very few people have the time, expertise, or willingness to do the former. Many more can do the latter. Fiddling about with the definition of editor is a distraction that just makes people immediately skip the rest of the request, because they know that they're not interested in picking the specs up as editors. I did that initially, and only gave it a second look when Ian rephrased your request in more succinct and correct terms. And, like I said, I have enough bandwidth to do this. ~TJ
Re: Call for Editors for Server-sent Events, Web Storage, and Web Workers
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote: But we are looking for more than someone to just push TR copies, we want someone who (like Ian) understands the issues, and knows how to help drive progress through consensus and technical expertise, and who can dedicate themselves to the task. Can we get a bullet-point listing of the responsibilities for the desired position? I've gone back and reread the OP, and I don't understand what exactly you're asking for. I'm sure the responsibilities are hidden there, but the wordiness makes my eyes slide right over them. ~TJ
Re: Call for Editors for Server-sent Events, Web Storage, and Web Workers
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Doug Schepers wrote: But we are looking for more than someone to just push TR copies, we want someone who (like Ian) understands the issues, and knows how to help drive progress through consensus and technical expertise, and who can dedicate themselves to the task. You already have someone doing that (me). The only thing I'm not doing currently is the pubrules/TR-page dance. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: Call for Editors for Server-sent Events, Web Storage, and Web Workers
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: [...] You aren't asking for someone to do all that though, you're just asking for someone to occasionally do a bit of administrative work. I have the bandwidth to help with that if necessary. Quick update: Tab and I have set up a system whereby he can do TR/ patent policy snapshot updates for the Server-Sent Events, Web Messaging, WebSocket API, Web Storage, and Web Workers specs whenever the group feels is necessary, with minimum involvement from me (at this point I just have to do a cvs up and then regen the spec). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
