W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Coordination

From: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:41:49 +0200
Message-ID: <516C741D.5040403@gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Maybe a simple solution would be to have in each W3C group someone at 
least following TC39 and then relaying information to es-discuss or 
public-script-coord when needed.

And someone maybe aware of "what happens in reality", which can differ 
from the specs.

And maybe limitating the answers to ten lines and if you have more to 
tell you create a gist or something like this.

I am subscribed to some lists too, just following a few really, and 
still find it not easy at all.

Looking at the agenda and specifics of each list, it seems difficlut to 
accumulate meetings or others where everybody does not have the same 
competences/concerns and to correct things "after the fact" (ie when the 
spec is already written), if some facilitators can help before, probably 
this will be efficient.

Regards,


Le 15/04/2013 10:43, Robin Berjon a écrit :
> On 12/04/2013 17:46 , Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 4/12/13 11:41 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
>>> I don't think it's unreasonable, I'm subscribed to (and read all of)
>>> both lists—because it's important to me. I doubt I'm the only one
>>> willing to bridge this gap.
>>
>> I'm not saying it's unreasonable for someone to be subscribed to both.
>>
>> I'm saying expecting _everyone_ to do it is not reasonable, given
>> traffic volumes.
>
> That's certainly true. Especially since it wouldn't involve being 
> subscribed to "both", but being subscribed to a rather long list of 
> lists: WebApps, DAP, SysApps, HTML, WHATWG, Web Audio, Web Crypto, Web 
> Performance, Media Capture, www-dom, SVG, a few RDF lists, and a bunch 
> more that I can't recall off the top of my head. And this doesn't even 
> get into Community Groups that might at some point move on to 
> producing specs.
>
> I'd love to someone to take this on, but it's a lot to ask of anyone.
>
>>> TC39 and other participants of es-discuss will commit to cc'ing
>>> public-script-coord whenever the subject matter is appropriate.
>>
>> That would be awesome.
>
> Yes, I think that would already be of great help.
>
>>  From the other direction, I think expecting W3C spec editors to cc
>> public-script-coord on basic things like "here is an API we're
>> designing" is a totally reasonable expectation.  In fact, I would
>> support making it part of a FPWD publication checklist.
>
> That's the conclusion I reached too, and I'm agitating internally to 
> see how we could make sure it happens. A lot of people have the reflex 
> of thinking "Last Call" for this, but altogether too often these 
> things are already implemented at LC (we're lucky when they're not 
> already shipped when we start reviewing them...) so I agree that much 
> sooner would be better.
>
> I'll take that as the plan and see if we can make it happen.
>

-- 
jCore
Email :  avitte@jcore.fr
iAnonym : http://www.ianonym.com
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
Web :    www.jcore.fr
Webble : www.webble.it
Extract Widget Mobile : www.extractwidget.com
BlimpMe! : www.blimpme.com
Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 21:39:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:49 UTC