W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > January 2003

Re: XHTML 2.0 and Semantics

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:59:37 -0000
Message-ID: <03fd01c2bc0f$d997c9d0$d9969dc3@Moomin>
To: <public-evangelist@w3.org>, "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>

"Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>
> At 20:03 +0000 2003-01-14, Jim Ley wrote:
> > In theory the public can raise issues which have to be addressed,
> >but in reality these can be ignored without difficulty.  Engaging the
public
> >is difficult of course, but the W3 has to take public issues seriously,
and
> >needs a process to achieve this.  The current laissez-fair attitude to
the
> >process document, means that there's little the public can do often but
> >Rant. *
>
> That's definitely wrong :)

No, you're quoting what the Process document says, I agree what it says is
adequate to ensure Public comments are acknowledged, however since the
public have no power of appeal when the process document is not followed, W3
WGs are free to ignore the Process document (consider the SVG working group,
it's ignored the process documents requirement on its Charter for at least a
year, nothing us public can do but regularly rant about it.)

Formal Addressing of public issues also routinely fail, perhaps because the
WG fails to monitor the public mailing lists or whatever, but the process
fails, and the process gives the public no method to appeal (it also has no
mailing list to raise process issues, which is where this should be, not
public-evangelist)

Jim.
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 16:01:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 July 2011 00:13:21 GMT