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

Process issues

From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:05:24 +0100
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <63930C77AA7F3A4C8C7D5D7F2BB2FFEA7CFA443F28@QEO40072.de.t-online.corp>
Hi all,

there are bunch off issues that were brought up during the brainstorming session.

I think it would be beneficial to work out what is meant by a given statement, because as they are they are not always "mature" enough to work with.

First on the list...

General issues
"specs are too large"


There are many potential views on what is meant by that.

Here are some thoughts.
I welcome your feedback.



Scope of a spec
Are specs too large because they try to be all encompassing, thereby creating unwanted size?

Would it be beneficial to 
- split a given spec up into reasonable components? 
  (with reasonable being something depending on the topic)
- give some guidance as to how big a given sub-section of a spec should be 
  (for example 1-20 pages as a suggestion)
- plan ahead and declare specific exclusions, to be saved for later versions, basically like a roadmap.


Editing a spec
Is editing a spec with more than one person per document a problem?

Would it be beneficial to 
- split larger specs up into sub-sections that are edited by different people?
- work on them within task forces inside the working group?



Dependencies
Are specs to large because there are too many dependencies to consider?
- See the above which would allow parceling out work on dependencies.



Why else might specs be considered too large?

Please lets us hear your views based on your experience.

-- Kai



Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2011 13:09:17 UTC

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