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

Re: ISSUE-55 - can we address it after TPAC?

From: David (Standards) Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:13:15 -0700
Cc: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <0DCF24D5-72E4-4390-A534-1BB84327C2BD@apple.com>
To: chaals@yandex-team.ru

On Oct 6, 2014, at 15:23 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:

> 
> 
> 06.10.2014, 18:06, "David (Standards) Singer" <singer@apple.com>:
>> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/55>
>> 
>> AC Meetings should not be scheduled to overlap All WG meetings
> 
> Does that rise to the level of something that has to be in the 1-2 pages of process that Art keeps crying for? Or the something under 10k words (i.e. half the current process) I am actually aiming for?

I just linked issue-55 so that others wouldn’t have to dig it out…not sure what you are asking.

>> Sure, after TPAC is fine.
> 
> You mean a fine time to return to the issue in the TF?

I mean we can discuss it then, if we need to at all (but see below).

>> FWIW, I would like the organizational meetings (AC, AB, probably TAG) scheduled before or after TPAC.  It’s only once a year, and TPAC is much too good an opportunity for technical cross-fertilization and discussion.
> 
> Yes, this is what I would like too. This question has been repeatedly put to the AC over something like a decade, and the people who want this have so far never been a majority.
> 
> I don't think this requirement belongs in the Process. First, if the majority changes its view one day, why wouldn't it change again a couple of years later? And second given the majority of voting AC reps are repeatedly and directly opposed to it I don't think it is useful to put it in.
> 
> But let's see what happens with the discussion.

I agree this is practice, not process, and does not belong in a process document.

I must admit to being puzzled though.

If you ARE involved in the technical work of the W3C, then the overlap is painful and would be better avoided.  If you are NOT involved in the technical work, then do you need to be at the TP part at all, so why does it worry you?  Who does the overlap advantage?

I guess there may be something to be said for having the plenary day at one end of the WG meetings, with the AC meeting on the other side of the plenary day? That would allow the AC reps who want to be in the general discussions of plenary day to attend.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 00:13:46 UTC

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