W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Workshop and meeting requirements

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 12:55:14 +0200
Message-ID: <5370A892.6020706@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 09/05/2014 14:01, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:

> ==The problem statement
> 
> The position paper/program committee structure has been claimed to be
> inappropriate for many types of event. This is a non-problem. The
> statement is true, but using such a process is entirely optional. It is

I just disagree with this phrasing. You are putting a personal opinion
here with that "this is a non-problem" that cannot capture the
complexity of the issue. I think there _is_ a problem and
we're trying to create a same-size-fits-all thing (called "Workshops")
for events of various sizes and formats. I do _not_ think it works. In
people's minds, a "workshop" is not a "conference". I perfectly
understand an event does not need a committee and position papers -
please note I was told the contrary six months ago - but a conference
has to be called "conference" and not "workshop".
Words. Do. Matter.

Speaking of "However we should clearly educate our community,
especially our chairs", maybe educate the Staff too;-) Again I was told
position papers were needed.

You also say below "Finally, the meeting requirements for Working Group
meetings, and Workshops should be in a single section in the Process.
There is a very high degree of overlap" and my comment is the same:
larger events and WG meetings can be so different I am not really sure
about your statement. In particular, W3C Members hosting a meeting are
expected to be able to provide some key meeting features while
non-Members hosting another kind of event can sometimes fail providing
some of those key features, w/o decreasing the value of the event.

So if your proposal is supposed to summarize all the discussions that
happened on this matter, sorry, I disagree with that assumption.

</Daniel>
Received on Monday, 12 May 2014 10:55:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:10 UTC