W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Getting the ball rolling on a better W3C process

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:53:58 -0800
To: dom@w3.org, public-w3process@w3.org, Art.Barstow@nokia.com
Message-ID: <op.v4z1b8sxwxe0ny@widsith-3.local>
Dom, thanks for kicking this along. I'm at W3Conf (third week in  
succession spent entirely on the road), but I'd planned to get onto this  
during this week.

Certainly, making the group go forward is something anyone interested can  
and should do.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:05:12 -0800, <Art.Barstow@nokia.com> wrote:

>> From: ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux [dom@w3.org]
>
>> I think our first goal should be to refine what topics we want to work
>> on, what outcome we expect from the group;
>
> Yes, some initial work on the general problem statement makes sense.

Yep. Although I don't know that we need to agree, so much as write stuff  
up and see what sticks.

>> I think it's fairly clear
>> that the Advisory Board would be the ultimate recipient of our input,
>> but whether that input is a list of issues, and/or a list of solutions
>> is not yet entirely clear to me (at least).
>
> This implementation detail seems secondary to me.

Not to me. Since a week ago, I agreed to be the editor for the Process  
document (it hasn't had an active one for years), but since I edit lightly  
based on agreed changes, I suggest that offering something less than a  
proposal for a specific change is unlikely to get enough traction fast  
enough to be worthwhile.

Having our own tracker means we can build issues lists, and figure out  
which ones are ready to push towards the AB (where the lazy editor can  
then drive them the final yard). There are a few AB people in this group  
(and Jeff Jaffe), which should be sufficient for "pre-communication"  
without anything formal.

>> We should also try to identify which issues need fixing (because they
>> prevent groups to work adequately) vs would-be-nice-to-fix (to better
>> reflect how groups currently work); another axis of analysis should be
>> which can be fixed quickly (for some definition of quickly) and which
>> are longer-terms changes.
>
> Agree that enumerating the issues is the next step and then later do  
> some prioritization.

I'd suggest we list the issues, and do prioritisation by darwinism -  
things that get worked on are high priority. And then we can figure out  
how to handle the massive amount of work we are getting done in a more  
efficient manner.

cheers

Chaals

> (Can you take the first step on this Dom e.g. create a wiki for the  
> issues?)
>
> -AB
>


-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 17:54:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:07 UTC