W3C news and stuff


Jory Burson
 

Thank you for the update, Brian! I'm replying to add the new 'projects' email list to the message. I will follow up in a bit with my own thoughts about how we should vote!

Also: ICYMI, there will be a session at the collaborator's summit to discuss how the OpenJS Foundation CPC wants to participate in standards matters moving forward. Will update the projects list with remote access details in case you aren't able to make the summit!

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 3:57 PM Brian Kardell <bkardell@...> wrote:
Sorry everyone, I continue to be behind.  As I said last time, there is a W3C election happening for the Advisory Board, and it is a rather big and important one.  I spent some time trying to make sure we had some candidates to vote for and we have 12 candidates for 7 open seats.  We are unfortunately (in my mind) losing Mike Champion and Natasha Rooney both of whom I thought were great on the AB.

I wanted to post this earlier but one of the candidates, Fantasai, was writing up notes about the AB election and it was such a good breakdown which I had some input into that I thought it would be great to just wait and send it along.  https://twitter.com/fantasai/status/1128008162835984385

I think she is right on about priorities and challenges and has some good observations and breaks down about potentially useful skills and qualities of the candidates.

We'll have to decide how to vote - realistically I expect the first 3 are the only probably important votes, if even those because of how STV works.  It's only going to take about 18 "first place" votes to land anyone a seat and I'm pretty sure at least some of these candidates have constituencies at least that big.

I think an important thing here is to try to find a way to get at least a core team who can work together functionally and possibly get elected so if you have thoughts on who a 'top 3' or 'top 4' that we should vote for and maybe advocate for, please let me know.

Another thing I wanted to mention is that a couple of weeks ago there was a web components f2f that might be interesting to some projects who may or may not have attended (I attended remotely) and if you'd like to look, the minutes are at 

https://www.w3.org/2019/04/25-components-irc
https://www.w3.org/2019/04/26-components-minutes.html

Again, if there is something there that you think is interesting to discuss or there are concerns or positions that we might like to advocate, please reach out.


Thanks,
Brian


--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: bkardell.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jsf-tac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsf-tac+unsubscribe@....
To post to this group, send email to jsf-tac@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jsf-tac/CADC%3D%2BjdBd%2B59LikwTK4cM5HTfo%2B5TXpC9U-47OW814Ufy7G_XQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Kris Borchers
 

Hi all,

 

I thought I would throw my 2 cents in here having been involved in W3C working groups and as the JSF’s AC rep for a number of years. I will first reiterate Brian’s suggestion to read fantasai’s post as my thoughts seem completely aligned with hers so rather than bore you with repetition, I will just drop in a list of names I would recommend we vote for and comments as necessary. I will also stop at 7 people as that is the number of available seats.

 

These names are in no order other than alphabetical by last name:

  • Tantek Çelik (Mozilla)
    • One of the few W3C folks that have been around for a really long time that is open to change and doing what is best for all
  • Elika Etemad aka fantasai (W3C Invited Expert)
  • Aaron Gustafson (Microsoft)
    • full disclosure for those not aware, I work for Microsoft now but also agree with fantasai’s assessment
  • Alan Stearns (Adobe)
  • Léonie Watson (TetraLogical)
    • I have worked with Léonie in a few different working groups and in her capacity as an accessibility expert and I highly recommend her
  • Chris Wilson (Google)
  • Judy (Hongru) Zhu (Alibaba)

 

I hope this is at least somewhat helpful and happy to chat with folks in more detail if you like.

Kris

 

From: jsf-project-contacts@... <jsf-project-contacts@...> On Behalf Of Jory Burson
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 4:23 PM
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@...>; projects@...
Cc: jsf-tac <jsf-tac@...>; JSF Project Contacts <jsf-project-contacts@...>
Subject: Re: W3C news and stuff

 

Thank you for the update, Brian! I'm replying to add the new 'projects' email list to the message. I will follow up in a bit with my own thoughts about how we should vote!

 

Also: ICYMI, there will be a session at the collaborator's summit to discuss how the OpenJS Foundation CPC wants to participate in standards matters moving forward. Will update the projects list with remote access details in case you aren't able to make the summit!

 

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 3:57 PM Brian Kardell <bkardell@...> wrote:

Sorry everyone, I continue to be behind.  As I said last time, there is a W3C election happening for the Advisory Board, and it is a rather big and important one.  I spent some time trying to make sure we had some candidates to vote for and we have 12 candidates for 7 open seats.  We are unfortunately (in my mind) losing Mike Champion and Natasha Rooney both of whom I thought were great on the AB.

 

I wanted to post this earlier but one of the candidates, Fantasai, was writing up notes about the AB election and it was such a good breakdown which I had some input into that I thought it would be great to just wait and send it along.  https://twitter.com/fantasai/status/1128008162835984385

I think she is right on about priorities and challenges and has some good observations and breaks down about potentially useful skills and qualities of the candidates.

 

We'll have to decide how to vote - realistically I expect the first 3 are the only probably important votes, if even those because of how STV works.  It's only going to take about 18 "first place" votes to land anyone a seat and I'm pretty sure at least some of these candidates have constituencies at least that big.

I think an important thing here is to try to find a way to get at least a core team who can work together functionally and possibly get elected so if you have thoughts on who a 'top 3' or 'top 4' that we should vote for and maybe advocate for, please let me know.

Another thing I wanted to mention is that a couple of weeks ago there was a web components f2f that might be interesting to some projects who may or may not have attended (I attended remotely) and if you'd like to look, the minutes are at 

https://www.w3.org/2019/04/25-components-irc
https://www.w3.org/2019/04/26-components-minutes.html

Again, if there is something there that you think is interesting to discuss or there are concerns or positions that we might like to advocate, please reach out.


Thanks,
Brian

 

--

Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: bkardell.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jsf-tac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsf-tac+unsubscribe@....
To post to this group, send email to jsf-tac@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jsf-tac/CADC%3D%2BjdBd%2B59LikwTK4cM5HTfo%2B5TXpC9U-47OW814Ufy7G_XQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JSF Project Contacts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsf-project-contacts+unsubscribe@....
To post to this group, send email to jsf-project-contacts@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jsf-project-contacts/CAB9rCSbYRNQOAVKC9nT0NdLJe842o7oJON-f2xQf35ad1k0XGA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Brian Kardell
 

Hoping third time is a charm for this post as I have had two bounce or disappear..
Let me try to summarize what I said in those

1. We need to vote very soon.  Kris suggested a list, but this is the only input I have, and it does not include an order

2. The way this system works: a) Order is the most important part b) only one of these votes will actually 'count' c) it is extraordinarily unlikely that all 7 actually matter at all, so most importantly it would be good to pick 4 'top' choices in an order.

3. I have traditionally thought of the best 'team', but as fantasai explained well - this system is anti-team picking really - it plays to substantial niche supports. I am pretty sure, for example, that Avneesh, who is not in Kris' list will get a seat.  He has a lot of vocal support from ACs on the mailing list from publishing interests, a lot of people actively lobbying for him and seems to be pretty widely known/well respected.  While others are splitting because of necessary ordering, he will rack up a lot of first and second choices.   

4. It's helpful if you could share your opinions/information about who you might want OR not if you have some information/experience with candidates that others might not.

Here is my own sense of it and why:

I think fantasai is an excellent choice because she has a long history with the w3c and has shown that she is not only a real worker, but specifically that she has been actively involved in all of these discussions via over 200 replies to public-w3process and a number of issues in https://github.com/w3c/w3process.

I think keeping Chris Wilson is a good choice for similar reasons, and because he represents/championed WICG and adding incubation and developers to the process. He and fantasai can work well together from past experience but frequently represent somewhat opposing views on topics like WICG.  Also, I think that as we are dealing with big issues with some history already, and we are losing a number of incumbents with this institutional knowledge as well as expanding the size with new ones, keeping some of that around seems pragmatic.

I think that Alan Sterns is a good choice because I have talked to him for several years about these issues and find him interested, engaged and well-informed and I can tell you from experience with him acting as co-chair of the CSS WG that I believe he has necessary qualities not dissimilar to some I generally liked about Mike Champion who we are losing of being a really good moderator/calm/generally peaceful solution finder even among clashing opinions.

I think these would be my top 3, in that order.  A fourth is much harder - I would kind of like to keep Leonie, but I also can see good arguments for Tantek, Eric or even Nigel.

I hope that if he doesn't get a seat, Aaron Gustavson stays involved and runs in the future, I just don't feel like he is in the best place to be the candidate we need right now given that he's had kind of little involvement in W3C and the challenges at stake this time around.

I would really love for someone to share thoughts on any of this.



On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:12 PM <kris.borchers@...> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I thought I would throw my 2 cents in here having been involved in W3C working groups and as the JSF’s AC rep for a number of years. I will first reiterate Brian’s suggestion to read fantasai’s post as my thoughts seem completely aligned with hers so rather than bore you with repetition, I will just drop in a list of names I would recommend we vote for and comments as necessary. I will also stop at 7 people as that is the number of available seats.

 

These names are in no order other than alphabetical by last name:

  • Tantek Çelik (Mozilla)
    • One of the few W3C folks that have been around for a really long time that is open to change and doing what is best for all
  • Elika Etemad aka fantasai (W3C Invited Expert)
  • Aaron Gustafson (Microsoft)
    • full disclosure for those not aware, I work for Microsoft now but also agree with fantasai’s assessment
  • Alan Stearns (Adobe)
  • Léonie Watson (TetraLogical)
    • I have worked with Léonie in a few different working groups and in her capacity as an accessibility expert and I highly recommend her
  • Chris Wilson (Google)
  • Judy (Hongru) Zhu (Alibaba)

 

I hope this is at least somewhat helpful and happy to chat with folks in more detail if you like.

Kris

 

From: jsf-project-contacts@... <jsf-project-contacts@...> On Behalf Of Jory Burson
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 4:23 PM
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@...>; projects@...
Cc: jsf-tac <jsf-tac@...>; JSF Project Contacts <jsf-project-contacts@...>
Subject: Re: W3C news and stuff

 

Thank you for the update, Brian! I'm replying to add the new 'projects' email list to the message. I will follow up in a bit with my own thoughts about how we should vote!

 

Also: ICYMI, there will be a session at the collaborator's summit to discuss how the OpenJS Foundation CPC wants to participate in standards matters moving forward. Will update the projects list with remote access details in case you aren't able to make the summit!

 

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 3:57 PM Brian Kardell <bkardell@...> wrote:

Sorry everyone, I continue to be behind.  As I said last time, there is a W3C election happening for the Advisory Board, and it is a rather big and important one.  I spent some time trying to make sure we had some candidates to vote for and we have 12 candidates for 7 open seats.  We are unfortunately (in my mind) losing Mike Champion and Natasha Rooney both of whom I thought were great on the AB.

 

I wanted to post this earlier but one of the candidates, Fantasai, was writing up notes about the AB election and it was such a good breakdown which I had some input into that I thought it would be great to just wait and send it along.  https://twitter.com/fantasai/status/1128008162835984385

I think she is right on about priorities and challenges and has some good observations and breaks down about potentially useful skills and qualities of the candidates.

 

We'll have to decide how to vote - realistically I expect the first 3 are the only probably important votes, if even those because of how STV works.  It's only going to take about 18 "first place" votes to land anyone a seat and I'm pretty sure at least some of these candidates have constituencies at least that big.

I think an important thing here is to try to find a way to get at least a core team who can work together functionally and possibly get elected so if you have thoughts on who a 'top 3' or 'top 4' that we should vote for and maybe advocate for, please let me know.

Another thing I wanted to mention is that a couple of weeks ago there was a web components f2f that might be interesting to some projects who may or may not have attended (I attended remotely) and if you'd like to look, the minutes are at 

https://www.w3.org/2019/04/25-components-irc
https://www.w3.org/2019/04/26-components-minutes.html

Again, if there is something there that you think is interesting to discuss or there are concerns or positions that we might like to advocate, please reach out.


Thanks,
Brian

 

--

Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: bkardell.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jsf-tac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsf-tac+unsubscribe@....
To post to this group, send email to jsf-tac@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jsf-tac/CADC%3D%2BjdBd%2B59LikwTK4cM5HTfo%2B5TXpC9U-47OW814Ufy7G_XQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JSF Project Contacts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsf-project-contacts+unsubscribe@....
To post to this group, send email to jsf-project-contacts@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jsf-project-contacts/CAB9rCSbYRNQOAVKC9nT0NdLJe842o7oJON-f2xQf35ad1k0XGA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: bkardell.com


dylan@...
 

Hi Brian,

I'm replying to let you know I've read the previous messages and I don't have much to add, but also hoping that replying will encourage others to reply.

For me, your suggested ordering for the first 3 sounds fine to me and makes sense based on experiences observing from a distance.

Regarding the 4th, deciding between Leonie and Tantek is a challenge as they're both lovely people and bring very different strengths to the table.

Beyond that, I have even less of an opinion.

I'm not sure how we're supposed to decide this, but hopefully my feedback is mildly useful.

Regards,
-Dylan

May 29, 2019 at 12:11
Hoping third time is a charm for this post as I have had two bounce or disappear..
Let me try to summarize what I said in those

1. We need to vote very soon.  Kris suggested a list, but this is the only input I have, and it does not include an order

2. The way this system works: a) Order is the most important part b) only one of these votes will actually 'count' c) it is extraordinarily unlikely that all 7 actually matter at all, so most importantly it would be good to pick 4 'top' choices in an order.

3. I have traditionally thought of the best 'team', but as fantasai explained well - this system is anti-team picking really - it plays to substantial niche supports. I am pretty sure, for example, that Avneesh, who is not in Kris' list will get a seat.  He has a lot of vocal support from ACs on the mailing list from publishing interests, a lot of people actively lobbying for him and seems to be pretty widely known/well respected.  While others are splitting because of necessary ordering, he will rack up a lot of first and second choices.   

4. It's helpful if you could share your opinions/information about who you might want OR not if you have some information/experience with candidates that others might not.

Here is my own sense of it and why:

I think fantasai is an excellent choice because she has a long history with the w3c and has shown that she is not only a real worker, but specifically that she has been actively involved in all of these discussions via over 200 replies to public-w3process and a number of issues in https://github.com/w3c/w3process.

I think keeping Chris Wilson is a good choice for similar reasons, and because he represents/championed WICG and adding incubation and developers to the process. He and fantasai can work well together from past experience but frequently represent somewhat opposing views on topics like WICG.  Also, I think that as we are dealing with big issues with some history already, and we are losing a number of incumbents with this institutional knowledge as well as expanding the size with new ones, keeping some of that around seems pragmatic.

I think that Alan Sterns is a good choice because I have talked to him for several years about these issues and find him interested, engaged and well-informed and I can tell you from experience with him acting as co-chair of the CSS WG that I believe he has necessary qualities not dissimilar to some I generally liked about Mike Champion who we are losing of being a really good moderator/calm/generally peaceful solution finder even among clashing opinions.

I think these would be my top 3, in that order.  A fourth is much harder - I would kind of like to keep Leonie, but I also can see good arguments for Tantek, Eric or even Nigel.

I hope that if he doesn't get a seat, Aaron Gustavson stays involved and runs in the future, I just don't feel like he is in the best place to be the candidate we need right now given that he's had kind of little involvement in W3C and the challenges at stake this time around.

I would really love for someone to share thoughts on any of this.





--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: bkardell.com
May 13, 2019 at 15:12

Hi all,

 

I thought I would throw my 2 cents in here having been involved in W3C working groups and as the JSF’s AC rep for a number of years. I will first reiterate Brian’s suggestion to read fantasai’s post as my thoughts seem completely aligned with hers so rather than bore you with repetition, I will just drop in a list of names I would recommend we vote for and comments as necessary. I will also stop at 7 people as that is the number of available seats.

 

These names are in no order other than alphabetical by last name:

  • Tantek Çelik (Mozilla)
    • One of the few W3C folks that have been around for a really long time that is open to change and doing what is best for all
  • Elika Etemad aka fantasai (W3C Invited Expert)
  • Aaron Gustafson (Microsoft)
    • full disclosure for those not aware, I work for Microsoft now but also agree with fantasai’s assessment
  • Alan Stearns (Adobe)
  • Léonie Watson (TetraLogical)
    • I have worked with Léonie in a few different working groups and in her capacity as an accessibility expert and I highly recommend her
  • Chris Wilson (Google)
  • Judy (Hongru) Zhu (Alibaba)

 

I hope this is at least somewhat helpful and happy to chat with folks in more detail if you like.

Kris

 

From: jsf-project-contacts@... <jsf-project-contacts@...> On Behalf Of Jory Burson
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 4:23 PM
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@...>; projects@...
Cc: jsf-tac <jsf-tac@...>; JSF Project Contacts <jsf-project-contacts@...>
Subject: Re: W3C news and stuff

 

Thank you for the update, Brian! I'm replying to add the new 'projects' email list to the message. I will follow up in a bit with my own thoughts about how we should vote!

 

Also: ICYMI, there will be a session at the collaborator's summit to discuss how the OpenJS Foundation CPC wants to participate in standards matters moving forward. Will update the projects list with remote access details in case you aren't able to make the summit!

 

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 3:57 PM Brian Kardell <bkardell@...> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JSF Project Contacts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsf-project-contacts+unsubscribe@....
To post to this group, send email to jsf-project-contacts@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jsf-project-contacts/CAB9rCSbYRNQOAVKC9nT0NdLJe842o7oJON-f2xQf35ad1k0XGA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JSF Project Contacts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsf-project-contacts+unsubscribe@....
To post to this group, send email to jsf-project-contacts@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jsf-project-contacts/04f701d509d9%2404a7d9c0%240df78d40%24%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
May 13, 2019 at 14:23
Thank you for the update, Brian! I'm replying to add the new 'projects' email list to the message. I will follow up in a bit with my own thoughts about how we should vote!

Also: ICYMI, there will be a session at the collaborator's summit to discuss how the OpenJS Foundation CPC wants to participate in standards matters moving forward. Will update the projects list with remote access details in case you aren't able to make the summit!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JSF Project Contacts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsf-project-contacts+unsubscribe@....
To post to this group, send email to jsf-project-contacts@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jsf-project-contacts/CAB9rCSbYRNQOAVKC9nT0NdLJe842o7oJON-f2xQf35ad1k0XGA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
May 13, 2019 at 12:57
Sorry everyone, I continue to be behind.  As I said last time, there is a W3C election happening for the Advisory Board, and it is a rather big and important one.  I spent some time trying to make sure we had some candidates to vote for and we have 12 candidates for 7 open seats.  We are unfortunately (in my mind) losing Mike Champion and Natasha Rooney both of whom I thought were great on the AB.

I wanted to post this earlier but one of the candidates, Fantasai, was writing up notes about the AB election and it was such a good breakdown which I had some input into that I thought it would be great to just wait and send it along.  https://twitter.com/fantasai/status/1128008162835984385

I think she is right on about priorities and challenges and has some good observations and breaks down about potentially useful skills and qualities of the candidates.

We'll have to decide how to vote - realistically I expect the first 3 are the only probably important votes, if even those because of how STV works.  It's only going to take about 18 "first place" votes to land anyone a seat and I'm pretty sure at least some of these candidates have constituencies at least that big.

I think an important thing here is to try to find a way to get at least a core team who can work together functionally and possibly get elected so if you have thoughts on who a 'top 3' or 'top 4' that we should vote for and maybe advocate for, please let me know.

Another thing I wanted to mention is that a couple of weeks ago there was a web components f2f that might be interesting to some projects who may or may not have attended (I attended remotely) and if you'd like to look, the minutes are at 

https://www.w3.org/2019/04/25-components-irc
https://www.w3.org/2019/04/26-components-minutes.html

Again, if there is something there that you think is interesting to discuss or there are concerns or positions that we might like to advocate, please reach out.


Thanks,
Brian


--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: bkardell.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JSF Project Contacts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsf-project-contacts+unsubscribe@....
To post to this group, send email to jsf-project-contacts@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jsf-project-contacts/CADC%3D%2BjdBd%2B59LikwTK4cM5HTfo%2B5TXpC9U-47OW814Ufy7G_XQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
SitePen
Dylan Schiemann
CEO / SitePen
+1.650.968.8787 x112
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn


Brian Kardell
 

As three of us have weighed in, but only 2 have expressed anything about the ultra important order and we have some disagreement on a few here is how I was thinking I would cast our votes - please let me know if you have other thoughts as tonight at midnight EST the polls close...

1. Fantasai
2. Chris Wilson
3. Alan Sterns
4. Tantek
5. Leonie Watson
...
no other expression of preference - we neither help nor hurt any other candidates.  Perhaps that's wishy washy and it probably doesn't ultimately matter, but who knows.... If you have thoughts, please let me know - I'll try wait as long as I can to cast a vote unless I can confirm that you can change your votes until midnight which used to be the case with the old system, but I see nothing in the interface here that even implies that.