W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-council@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Some templates started [Was: Missing op agreement warning]

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 17:38:53 -0600
Cc: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DC76CD68-B9B3-4C68-953C-05101D34A238@w3.org>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>

On 4 Jan 2013, at 1:28 PM, Young, Milan wrote:

[snip]

>> Hi Milan,
>> 
>> Maybe a useful way to make progress on this question is to analyze the
>> difference between a CG and a WG.
>> 
>> I'm not so much interested in the explicit differences like "the Director chooses
>> a WG Chair; the CG chooses its Chair" .
>> 
>> There's another difference that's explicit: W3C requires WGs to follow a
>> consensus process; we merely recommend that CGs do.
>> 
>> You wrote: "all communication outside the operational agreement is non-
>> binding." What would you contrast that statement with in the W3C process for
>> Working Groups?
> 
> [Milan] I don't know the WG process well enough to answer that question.  What are your ideas?


I was simply looking at your statement and wondering whether you thought it held true in WGs as well.

Ian

--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 23:38:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 4 January 2013 23:38:57 GMT