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

RE: Chartering work

From: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 16:10:54 +0000
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BLUPR03MB48830ADDF7E892C7CD3DEA1976A0@BLUPR03MB488.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Schepers [mailto:schepers@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 8:27 AM
> To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>; Revising W3C Process Community
> Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Chartering work
> 
> > IME successful standards are based upon real implementation and
> > deployment experience with a specific proposal, not confected from
> > whole cloth.
> 
> On the whole, I agree with this, though there are exceptions both ways;
> waiting for existing implementations to start on sometimes means you'll
> never get started (unless you can use a polyfill as a basis… that's a
> lower bar).

I'm struggling to think of an exception to Mark's point that successful standards are based on real experience.  I strongly encourage W3C to charter WGs to standardize what works rather than to take a "if we standardize it they will implement" approach.

> I've been collecting a list of suggestions for general good chartering
> practice, many of them from recent charter reviews, and also from
> threads on the AC forum [1] (member-only link, unfortunately, sorry).

FWIW my thoughts on that thread are in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2015JulSep/0096.html .

'Let's make chartering standards track work  an empirical exercise in proving that the necessary criteria are met, and not so much a political exercise of lobbying, voting, and horse trading. Insist that potential standards are "incubated" to get a rough draft of an actual spec out for examination, ask proponents of standardization to document the risks and benefits of standardizing that spec, and make sure there willingness on the part of implementers to actually ship it and [for everyone] make patent commitments.   The AC ballot could be essentially a vote on whether the proponents have proved their case yet, or whether they need to incubate some more but are free to ask again.'



Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2015 16:11:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 September 2015 16:11:24 UTC