The HTML Plan
Advisory Board Edition
Participation
- Problem:
- Large group ⇒ lack of focus ⇒ lack of participation
- Solution:
- Organize as a federation of smaller groups
- Details:
- Move work from Task Forces to Community Groups
Consensus
- Problem:
- Delegate while retaining consensus as a value
- Solution:
- Output of CG is input to WG
- Details:
- CG
FSA becomes
WG
FPWD/
CR
Resources
- Problem:
- Lack of editor/test resources
- Solution:
- Reduce duplication, eliminate errata
- Details:
- Delegate bug triage to WHATWG;
annual HTML recommendations
Resources
- Problem:
- IPR issues are a stumbling block for working with WHATWG
- Solution:
- Embrace forking/merging as a mode of operation
- Details:
- Adopt W3C Software License for Specifications
Key differences
- Reviewers are asked to file bugs against the WHATWG HTML spec
- Automatic publishing - no cherry-picking
- New work done in autonomous Community Groups
- Encourage pull requests as a best practice for conflict resolution.
Key dates
- Updated HTML 5.1 Editor's draft: February 2015
- Deployment of plan by WG: during the spring F2F
- Rechartering of group: June 2015
- HTML 5.1 Recommendation: year end 2015 (aggressive target)
Open Questions to the AB
- Is delegating triage of HTML bugs to the WHATWG acceptable?
- Is our proposed handling of errata acceptable?
- Does the AB have an opinion on our “supergroup” organisation?
- Is our licensing strategy good?
- Is our plan likely to lead to better browser vendor engagement?
- Given a CG-based model, what is the incentive for Members to participate?
The Gory Details
This presentation focused on participation and
the WHATWG.
Enquiring minds should feel free to consult the full plan.