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

Re: " W3C Culture" CG? RE: Problems I'd like to see addressed in Process 2016

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:29:40 -0400
Message-ID: <553D0464.2050309@w3.org>
To: chaals@yandex-team.ru, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
CC: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>


On 4/26/2015 12:49 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> + coralie@
>
>
>
> 24.04.2015, 21:24, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@gmail.com>:
>> On 4/24/15 2:01 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
>>>   http://w3.org/Guide .  I don’t think what I have in mind is a CG to
>>>   advise the staff on how to update the Guide.  I was thinking more like
>>>   a CG to crowdsource a "Guide for a Revitalized W3C.   It might:
>>>
>>>   -  Critically review the  written (in the Guide and Process Document)
>>>   and unwritten W3C policies and cultural norms to identify those that
>>>   really work in practice and those that haven’t aged well or don’t
>>>   align with modern industry and OSS practice.
>>>   - Give open minded consideration to common critiques of W3C culture,
>>>   e.g. our regrettable tendency to “bikeshed all things”
>>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality
>>>   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality>
>> Given W3Process CG still uses a lot of old skool practices the
>> consortium should presumably discourage (f.ex. still using Hg rather
>> than Github, schedule-driven releases, synchronous decision making,
>> weekly calls, etc.), it seems like a more `progressive` group should be
>> used or a new one created.
> The Process CG doesn't use synchronous decision-making or schedule-driven releases in general - it is only the AB Process task force, who are camping within the structure, that works that way.
>
> If the contents of the Guide, or some putative replacement, are placed in github - or some similar easy editing mechanism is exposed - I see no reason why we couldn't just work on it here, and I'll track it to make that possible.

The team has a great interest in this project and we would certainly be 
willing to participate with any venue (this ProcessCG, O&TCG or a 
different one) that wanted to pick up the task of keep the guide vibrant 
and relevant.

>
> Coralie is carbon copied (Old School terminology and spelling warning) here because she is the listed maintainer for the Guide, and it would be worth doing something to make sure we don't just fall out of synch or throw away the good stuff in there with the rest.
>
>> FWIW, I think the above is in scope for the OpenAndTransparent CG ;-).
>> However, it also seems like all that is needed to bootstrap the above is
>> to create a new project under github.com/w3c/ (such as
>> {How-To,Guide,GuidelinesAndBPs, ...}) and then announce the project and
>> solicit PRs. It's not clear any formal `group` is actually needed.
> Right. Although it is pretty useful to be able to explain where to send comments, and know where to expect them to be sent if you might want to respond…
>
> cheers
>
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
>
Received on Sunday, 26 April 2015 15:29:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 26 April 2015 15:29:44 UTC