- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 12:39:17 -0400
- To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 10/3/14 12:04 PM, Nigel Megitt wrote: > Which is a long winded way of saying the process document has to get the > balance right. Yes true, and getting the "right balance" is also somewhat subjective. Instead of the consortium's various ProcDocs being "kitchen sink" type docs that appear to have "job security for process wonks" as a primary design goal, IMHO, a usable ProcDoc would just be: 1-2 pages that describes the various states/stages of the TR process; include links to community-based documents that provide guidelines, BPs and such for the various actors (Editors, Chairs, Staff, WebMaster) for the various states; and presume common sense and good will will prevail if/when issues arise. (FYI, I recommended a major refactoring like this a while ago [1].) -AB [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013May/0015.html
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 16:39:47 UTC