Re: Group status...

On Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 7:28 PM, François REMY wrote:

> Yep, you've done a very good work of spreading our ideas to key people, Thank you for all that 'invisible' work.
>  
> It isn't entirely clear to me which specific questions you were asked to answer. However, if the W3C ask about the group priorities, my personal thoughts would be:
>  
> - Getting more CSSOM specifications implemented to allow harnessing the power of the CSS and Layout engines.
> - Getting the ES Proxy spec implemented to enable a full emulation of WebIDL objects.
> - Getting the shadow dom & web components spec implemented to allow more HTML/DOM-related polyfills.
>  
> Regarding the 'transition to legit working groups' statement, I'm not against transforming this WG in an official working group but I guess it will be difficult to have weekly telcons for most of us. I wonder if that's a requirement.
It's not. Few groups hold weekly teleconferences. It's not a very good use of people's time.   
> However, if it gives this group a legitimacy to ask to assist as observer to some other groups (or, to the contrary, people working inside some other working groups sending us weekly reports), why not? Those people could probably have as role to evaluate the extensibility of features and make comments about that without interfering with the general working of those groups (as stated in our scope declaration).

Agreed.  
>  
> It would also feed the group with fresh content and possibilities to act on active discussions (instead of opening discussions that some group may not be interested to have right at the time we open them).
>  

I don't think it would actually change our situation much. It would also potentially alienate some folks who would either need to become full w3c members or go through the process of getting Invited Expert status.

Received on Saturday, 27 April 2013 19:44:32 UTC