Meet the 2024 TAG Candidates: Hadley

Questions

What is the most important problem the Web Platform faces that the TAG could reasonably address, and how will you start to address it if you're elected?
The TAG has a lot of things it can do or is asked to do, what should the TAG prioritize in the coming year?
What kinds of reviews should go to the TAG, how should the TAG triage reviews, and how can you help the group be more comfortable rejecting reviews it doesn't have time for?
Do you want the Team to release the anonymized ballots from this election? Why or why not?
The TAG has a problem with members failing to show up and do the needed work. How much time do you have to commit to TAG work? Do you have travel or scheduling constraints?
What skills, expertise, and perspectives do you have that the continuing TAG members and other TAG candidates lack?
If you disagree with a feature's design, how will you decide between just saying that it's bad, vs trying to improve its design as much as possible?
Can you show us an example of a time you found a way forward between people who initially disagreed strongly?
What mistakes has the TAG made recently?

Answers

1. What is the most important problem the Web Platform faces that the TAG could reasonably address, and how will you start to address it if you're elected?

The landscape is changing. A lot.

The rise of AI and LLMs is potentially changing how everyone uses the web, cutting down on user traffic, and ad revenue, and side-stepping search engines as the “front door”.

A number of governments are considering changing or regulating the companies that are large players in the web, which could shake up who is participating in standards development and how they are funded.

The web in 5-10 years may look very different to what we see now, but technical leadership is even more important through such potentially dramatic change. The TAG should be leading the conversation across the industry on how to handle these issues, what the web is and should be, and how we continue to drive it to help humanity progress.

The TAG should not only provide strategic leadership, but also tangible help. The web standards community is full of people who are experts in their specific technology: whether it’s layout and CSS, or devices and sensors, or TTML for online videos and media. The TAG’s job is to identify where their efforts are overlapping, help them if they’re stuck, find holes across the platform that no one is working on, and share experience of what works and what causes unintended problems.

2. The TAG has a lot of things it can do or is asked to do, what should the TAG prioritize in the coming year?

In recent years, the TAG has been primarily reactionary, focusing on design reviews and a few strategic documents. This shift was understandable, as the TAG was evolving away from a period when it was more theoretical and less practical. However, this reactive approach comes with several challenges:

Overwhelming Workload: The TAG is often inundated with requests, as it reviews proposals for new web features. Not every proposal has broad architectural implications, and not every one will be implemented. The TAG needs to be more selective and strategic in choosing which emerging features to engage with, ensuring that its resources are used effectively.
Limited Bandwidth for Larger, Strategic Issues: By focusing too much on individual proposals, the TAG has less capacity to tackle bigger, more impactful architectural challenges. Many of the TAG’s documents, particularly those addressing broader architectural concerns, have a more scalable effect on how the web evolves.

Prioritizing these larger issues would allow the TAG to make a more lasting impact. This refocusing is especially important given the significant changes shaping the web. If the TAG continues to be consumed by details, we may look back and regret not having had the opportunity to share our expertise with other standards bodies, developers, regulators, and other stakeholders who will shape the future of the web during this pivotal time.

3. What kinds of reviews should go to the TAG, how should the TAG triage reviews, and how can you help the group be more comfortable rejecting reviews it doesn't have time for?

As the TAG narrows its capacity for design reviews, prioritization becomes even more critical. TAG members will need to develop clear and effective criteria for deciding which reviews to take on. These criteria might include:

Work that has a broad impact across the web platform
Identifying gaps or weaknesses in the web architecture
Overlapping work created by different working groups or charters
Proposals that may require updates to TAG documents, such as the Design Principles or the Ethical Web Principles
Proposals that are still in early stages and can be shaped by TAG feedback (as opposed to fully developed specs where the TAG’s input would have limited influence)

This isn't an easy challenge, since staying aware of a wide range of work helps the TAG stay informed and relevant. However, it’s important to recognize that the TAG can't, and shouldn't, review everything. Developing a strategy for rejecting reviews — while still staying connected to the broader landscape — will help the group focus its efforts where they can have the most impact.

4. Do you want the Team to release the anonymized ballots from this election? Why or why not?

Working in the open is important, so I’m generally in favour of transparency. In this case though, I’m not sure it would add much, and may create a hierarchy among successful (or even unsuccessful) candidates that might not be helpful.

5. The TAG has a problem with members failing to show up and do the needed work. How much time do you have to commit to TAG work? Do you have travel or scheduling constraints?

I have 1-2 days per week to commit, and am restructuring my outside responsibilities to support this. I don’t have travel constraints.

6. What skills, expertise, and perspectives do you have that the continuing TAG members and other TAG candidates lack?

I don't know all the other candidates well, so I don’t feel I can comment on their skills and expertise.

However, in addition to a strong grounding in web architecture and how the W3C operates, I bring a few strengths to the table:

Facilitation and Consensus Building: I’m skilled at facilitating challenging discussions and guiding groups toward consensus, even on complex or contentious issues.
Connecting Dots Across Domains: I’m good at identifying opportunities to link work from one group or topic to seemingly unrelated efforts elsewhere, fostering cross-pollination and reducing conflicts or duplication.

Furthermore, much of my career has been spent working in governments, which are increasingly shaping the web and its broader ecosystem. This experience has equipped me to communicate effectively with, collaborate with, and inform policymakers and regulators — skills that are essential as we navigate the complex landscape of guiding pressures on the web today.

And finally, I am a continuing TAG member. Or, at least, would like to be. At a time when four of the twelve TAG members are not planning to return, I can provide institutional knowledge and experience to help the next TAG be as successful as possible.

7. If you disagree with a feature's design, how will you decide between just saying that it's bad, vs trying to improve its design as much as possible?

Saying "it's bad" is never helpful feedback. At the very least, the TAG needs to explain why a design is problematic. However, the TAG’s role is not to simply pass judgment — it’s to provide constructive, actionable insights.

The TAG adds value by sharing its reasoning: for example, pointing out potential complications that a design may cause, identifying areas where a proposal conflicts with ethical principles, or referencing past examples where similar approaches failed.

Equally important, the TAG contributes by sharing its thought process through resources like the Design Principles, the Security and Privacy Questionnaire, and the Ethical Web Principles. These documents help spec authors consider the potential pitfalls of their designs, encouraging a more thoughtful and informed development process.

This feedback loop then feeds into the TAG’s drafting process: when recurring patterns emerge in design reviews, the TAG should capture and document those insights. This allows others to learn from the TAG’s expertise when designing new web features, ultimately reducing the number of problematic ideas proposed to the TAG.

It’s also crucial that the TAG has no formal decision-making power. This helps the group stay focused on providing relevant, helpful advice, building authority through its contributions rather than through approval or disapproval. I believe this approach is far more impactful than a simple “good/bad” evaluation role.

8. Can you show us an example of a time you found a way forward between people who initially disagreed strongly?

In the working groups I’ve chaired, there have been several instances of internal disagreement. My approach is to start by clarifying a shared end goal—something we all agree on (for example, “we need to decide whether this section should be included in the spec”). Then, I give everyone uninterrupted time to present their position, ensuring each person’s perspective is fully heard.

From there, I guide the group toward a solution, often drawing on the W3C process as a framework for decision-making. For example: “If we can't reach consensus on adding this, we'll need to proceed without it.”

I’ve found that when people feel heard, recognized, and assured that they’re not being sidelined or ignored — and when we operate within a clear, agreed-upon process — it fosters an environment where everyone can accept the final decision and move forward together.

9. What mistakes has the TAG made recently?

I’m sure the TAG has made several mistakes, and I take my share of responsibility as a member of the recent TAG.

One key area where we’ve struggled is managing our workload. Our heavy focus on design reviews has left us overwhelmed, like trying to drink from a fire hose. The constant demand for feedback has not only reduced our capacity for other important work, but it has also led to unacceptable delays in responding to groups. This is counterproductive and ultimately serves no one.

Another area for improvement is our engagement with various constituencies — working groups, developers, other standards bodies, and horizontal review groups within the W3C community. Both informal and formal conversations with people working on similar problems from different perspectives are incredibly valuable. These interactions can help inform the TAG’s work and better target our efforts. Since the beginning of the pandemic, I believe we’ve lost momentum in this area and could invest more energy into revitalizing these connections.

Finally, I think we’ve been too hesitant to delegate. While the Privacy Principles Task Force was a success, producing a strong document with broad input and support, this model could work for many other topics as well. We haven’t used it enough, and I believe we should do so more often.

The TAG has a lot of energy for trying to do things more effectively, and if elected, I would like to improve things in all the ways I've written here.