- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:36:10 +0000
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Jun 4, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > On 04/06/2014 16:14 , Sylvain Galineau wrote: >> And with Jeff suggesting 25% participation is actually high compared >> to voting on charters - what's the problem there? The word 'charter'? >> - I'm afraid bikeshedding the name mostly treats a symptom instead of >> finding the cause. > > I don't think that you can compare both. I don't think that people should vote on specific group charters unless they have a specific interest in how that specific area should work. > > Besides... they aren't votes. It's a way of gather comments and assessing their intensity. That's fair; members focus on certain areas so participation within that area is probably more relevant. The amount of charter feedback provided by members in some areas might actually be very, very low and it might not always be a problem; some charters are non-controversial and routine, while everyone may have an opinion on HTML... > > IMHO no matter which way you dice it 25% isn't high. It's a clear signal the AB is simply unimportant to 75% of the members. And it's possible that this is specific to the AB. Not sure how, but I'd like to know. Do we know what TAG turnout is like, incidentally? I didn't think I could become even less interested in the AB than I was but I suppose was wrong. > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 15:37:00 UTC