- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:22:23 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Aug 24, 2007, at 5:18 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> And here I thought the IETF AtomPub effort seemed chaotic. :-)
>
> At the moment, the way that this working group is operating is that
> people are bringing in new ideas, they are being debated on the
> spot, some make it directly into the document, others are placed on
> the list, and still others go nowhere at all. We started with a
> bootstrap which did not have a rationale document, and this process
> hasn't changed. All that has changed is that the W3C has imposed
> additional chairs which increase the workload, and (to me at least)
> further confuse the flow.
>
> This understandably leads to an overworked editor, appearances of
> the potential for impropriety, and disenfranchised contributors
> ("hey he got his input in, but I did not, what gives?")
>
> The way the IETF AtomPub working group normally operated was that
> all participants could bring forward issues and suggestions (as they
> do here). The secretary's role was to capture and schedule topics.
> The chairs had multiple roles: they determined when the secretary
> scheduled the next round, the made determinations of consensus, and
> they acted as the first point of escalation -- more on that at the
> minute. The editors "normal" role was to make the changes that the
> chairs directed.
>
I support the idea of a secretary to officially record feedback. I
think a lot of feedback on the mailing list has not been recorded in
the wiki in the official way and it will be too much work for the
editor to go through it all. But we may have a hard time finding one
or more secretary volunteers.
Regards,
Maciej
Received on Friday, 24 August 2007 19:23:04 UTC