Design by committee has long been considered a bad idea. Yet it only dawned on me yesterday that this is exactly how we build the spec for the web. From CSS to Microformats, we not only design the spec by committee, but we’ve managed to take the idea of a committee to a whole new level. Now, anyone from the four corners of the world with an internet connection and an email address can contribute.
A camel is a horse designed by committee
Is this wrong? Is it really a bad idea? After all the web is supposed to be a democracy of sorts. There isn’t an internet police and if everyone has a voice, then no one can complain. But it was Molly who asked only a few days ago What are the most critical issues we need to solve regarding the current fragmenting state of HTML (and XHTML)?
(emphasis mine). I can’t help but think that eliminating the approach of a design by committee wouldn’t be a good start. After all, Douglas Crockford single handedly wrote the spec for JSON.
So what do we do? Do we lock a few brains up in a room until they come up with the next version of HTML? Or do we watch the community continue to fragment into HTML 5, XHTML 2 and who knows what else? What are your thoughts?★
Does it go to show that there is a magic number for each project which will be well carried out? How do we determine that number and do we need a committee to come up with that list? ;)
.. I love the camel 2.0 reflections.
Without a committee there would be no web standards because methods would be constantly changed to suit the needs of individuals and groups.
Id say leave it the way it is. Thats my 2 cents worth.
We’re trying hard to avoid design-by-committee for HTML5. Instead. we have a benevolent dictator as an editor who takes feedback from the whole community, but makes the final decisions about what goes in the spec.
And maybe all this “committee-ing” is why CSS 3 is still in “spec” mode as well. It’s good to have input, of course, but at a certain point, it seems ridiculous.
I don’t see anything inherently bad about the process. I do, however, see the fragmentation as a bit unnecessary. The two (or more) groups should seek collaboration and compromise, not fragmentation. I personally think XML is the future, not the least of which because it’s easier to parse (and has fewer rules to remember) than quasi-SGML.
And Jon, I think CSS3 will probably always be draft. It’s designed to be modular, so some modules will be standardized faster than others, new modules will be added, old modules will be updated, etc.
My understanding is that WHATWG is basically a coallition of the discontent. They weren’t happy with how things were done with the W3C, so they created a faction. This new faction promises open discussions where everyone has its say and that it wont be like with the W3C… of course not… how could it be?
This sounds like either glorified school-yard brawl or a miniature political intrigue.
We just recently got out of a long-winded browser war, and are just starting to get decent compatibility across the board.
Having mozilla and opera on one side with whatwigimabob and microsoft with the W3C on the other side sounds to me like the begining of more and more of the same old crap.
If you ask me, specifications can be “designed”… but the “standard” part of “standard specifications” isnt about design; it is about agreement. Consensus is ALWAYS costly and time consuming, and has nothing to do with “design”.
I think that convergence of ALL browser to the support of xhtml was an amazing thing… but it seems that html pundits cant restrain themselves from splitting the hairs from the camel’s back.
–
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s web developers, And all the king’s browser manufacturer, Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
–
Sorry… I love to hate technology!
According to wikipedia.org design by committee seems to be a bad idea. My opinion is that the creation process should be kept as simple and as effective as possible.
Respiro