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

Re: Workshop and meeting requirements

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 10:44:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqU5RCLmH-9698_nvgSRZ_u9Cxy=oLzxDcL6uN1XVT=4-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>, David Singer <singer@mac.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
When we stress the 8-week limit and other "requirements", we do in fact
encourage people to think of the W3C as old-skool bureacracy.  We need to
explain how to be agile inside the Process (which I think is fine), or
change the Process.

y'know, in my opinion.  :)


On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <
Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:

> > . I still can't quite figure out why events 'loosely affiliated with
> W3C' are a concern for the Process document
> I agree. I think we're talking more about advising the team on best
> practices than talking about revising the process document, but Charles has
> noted some potential changes to make it easier for people to understand
> that the process document does not force people to choose between
> "old-skool bureaucracy" and "do it outside W3C altogether."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sylvain Galineau [mailto:galineau@adobe.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:38 AM
> To: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
> Cc: David Singer; public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Workshop and meeting requirements
>
>
> On May 13, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <
> Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks David, I think this is a good summary.  What I've taken from this
> discussion is that having not-quite-a-workshop events that are loosely
> affiliated with W3C can be valuable if that means:
> > - W3C (somehow, either the staff or a social mechanism) vets the event
> to ensure that it is technical rather than marketing/political
> > - W3C participants get advance notice via an online calendar, dedicated
> mailing list, whatever.
> > - Organizers commit to publishing some sort of takeaway document -
> summary, points of consensus and disagreement, action items, etc.
> >
> Yes; advance notice and sharing the results are the two main guidelines
> for such events. I still can't quite figure out why events 'loosely
> affiliated with W3C' are a concern for the Process document, however. I
> have seen small subsets of the CSSWG meet outside regularly scheduled f2f
> meetings, sometimes very productively. While I'd like to remind people to
> advertise these meetings beforehand and make sure they share the results -
> e.g. including by using #css for minuting - this seems good charter
> material, not W3C Process.
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 17:44:40 UTC

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