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

Running off topic Re: w3process-ISSUE-124

From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 15:19:53 +0200
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <26631412342393@webcorp02g.yandex-team.ru>
CG chair hat on

ISSUE-124 is closed. Nobody supported the proposal, many people spoke, all against it.

It seems clear that the continuing arguments about what people may or should have or won't say are not leading to any useful insights or suggestions about the process or how the W3C works. They are feeding a flamewar.

There are a number of areas where the process would probably benefit from stronger requirements for transparency and documentation of what happened, and those are legitimate issues for discussion.

If you would like to focus on those questions, please raise issues accordingly.

cheers

Chaals

03.10.2014, 15:13, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@gmail.com>:
> On 10/3/14 8:57 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> šOn 10/02/2014 05:29 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>> šAgain, it is unfortunate
>>> šthe meeting wasn't held in a transparent way and that "minutes" from the
>>> šmeeting aren't sufficient to back either position.
>> šI disagree.
>
> You disagree with what exactly?
>
> The meeting was not transparent f.ex. HTMLWG participants were not
> invited; no minutes published. Additionally, 2 of the 3 HTMLWG chairs
> were not present nor the lead HTML5 Editor). I quoted _minutes_ above
> because they do not šrecord who said what nor who spoke on behalf of whom.
>
> -AB

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 13:20:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:12 UTC