- From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:07:45 +0900
- To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
- Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Le 13 mai 2014 à 14:04, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> a écrit : > I must disagree with some of the things that you said. See inline below. hmmm… weird. > If the (spontaneous) meetings are held in the context of a Working Group or Community Group and others in the Group are notified, then it is reasonable that a meeting be held with less prior notice. We said the same. See my paragraphs on booking and visa. >> The issues need to be articulated around the notion of time, number of >> participants, key people (subjective). > [SZ] It is a bit of hubris to assume that the meeting organizers know the "key people". This comes across as saying, "if my friends can attend then that must be enough". Yup it's why I put subjective. Agreed again. ;) > [SZ] Do you have any idea of how long it takes to get a visa to the US from China? It can take as much as two months. yes. :) been there done that, multiple times. written also invitation letters for WG F2F. The only thing where we **might** have a disagreement is the "No, we want the membership to be able to participate in the work of the organization." Membership and W3C staff are important, but I would put always the Web before that. And I thought the discussion was about meetingS and not only Workshops. :) -- Karl Dubost 🐄 http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 07:08:00 UTC