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

Re: AW: Getting the ball rolling on a better W3C process

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:19:44 +0100
Message-ID: <1321449584.26049.111.camel@altostratustier>
To: "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Le mercredi 16 novembre 2011 à 10:36 +0100, Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich a
écrit :
> I could co-chair with Charles.

Thanks for the offer, Kai! I've marked you as co-chair of the CG.

> Jumping ahead to some later mails, I support Charles' view to tackle the issues by priority.

That sounds like a good idea in principle, but if there are some
interdependencies between issues, this could get messy.

Looking at the list of points you've summarized in your blog post, it
sounds to me that some points are opinions ("the process is too long and
too complex"), some are facts but not necessarily issues ("process
documents do not match the development model we use"), some are
expressions of two conflicting requirements ("the draft in TR space is
continuously out dated" vs "stakeholders need stability").

I think it would be useful for someone to go through the list of points,
and try to identify:
* the actual (presumably negative) impact of the said point on WGs (or
on specific roles within WGs)

* the document that creates that pain point (could be the process
document, pubrules, the transition request document, or some
undocumented convention)

Dom
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 13:20:17 UTC

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