Re: Group status...

Well - I was only in it for the shirt - so never mind.

On 4/29/13 9:24 AM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>On Monday, April 29, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On Monday, April 29, 2013 at 4:56 PM, François REMY wrote:
>>  
>> > > I've been an IE for about 6 years on and off - and sure, it looks
>>nice on my LinkedIn while I'm unemployed; but in practice I've found it
>>really makes no difference than just subscribing to the public mailing
>>list.
>> >  
>> >  
>> >  
>> > Thanks for the insight. There's a difference, though, if you have the
>>opportunity to attend telcons & some real-life meetings. Real-life
>>discussion beats by a large marge any mail you could send ;-)
>>  
>> Nothing stops you from showing up to any W3C meeting. 99% are open to
>>the public and would welcome anyone's input (you certainly don't have to
>>be an IE to attend them).
>Same applies with the teleconfs, btw (few groups actually ever hold
>teleconfs, and the ones that do - like HTML- don't care who shows up). If
>there was a perceived problem, then you could get transitioned, but that
>is rare.  
>
>In other words, you should really transition to an IE if you are editing
>specifications or doing some significant undertaking in a WG (e.g., I
>edit a bunch of specs for the SysApp WG, so it makes sense for me to be
>an IE; I created a bunch of test suites for DAP, and edited a bunch of
>specs for WebApps also as an IE). If your are just reviewing specs and
>advocating certain things, then doing it as a public participant is fine.
> 
>
>I'm not saying you guys should not push to become IE's in WGs if you
>want. I'm just saying that you don't get any benefits out of if (not even
>a lousy t-shirt!:)).
>
>--  
>Marcos Caceres
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 16:32:34 UTC