W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2015

Re: process.next wish list

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:09:00 +0200
Cc: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <B7DFE3F3-6E48-4A6B-95BD-8C933F912BFA@apple.com>
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>

> On Apr 15, 2015, at 21:14 , Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
>> Any temporary rules shouldn't allow any TR publications after charter expiration, unless W3C wants to state that the patent policy applies to work done in WGs with expired charters.
>> I wouldn't allow any work on specs  (or W3C should clarify whether the patent policy applies to WGs without a charter).  They should work exclusively on a Charter, or on drafting an email asking for an extension :).
> 
> I agree with most of the points here, but I wonder if we really need to put this in the *process* document or trust the Director and Team to adopt and execute appropriate *policies* to ensure that we don't have this problem in the future?  I lean toward the latter.  There has been a problem in the past with WGs running long past their chartered dates, the AC and AB have made it clear that we find this unacceptable, and W3C management seemed to be promising to keep a closer eye on this.  Let's give them a year or so to make the problem go away, and if it hasn't, THEN we can talk about tweaks to the process.

Agree. I would like to improve our practices such that charter expiry is rare, and truly represents a failure case, without using or needing the ‘stick’ of draconian consequences. Once we have our practices in order, then a draconian consequence for a rare true failure seems fine.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.



Received on Thursday, 16 April 2015 09:09:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 16 April 2015 09:10:00 UTC