W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2016

Re: WICG Incubation vs CSSWG Process

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 11:55:24 +0330
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d48cc450-64d0-474c-0171-316d1ff4a5b9@inkedblade.net>
On 12/26/2016 08:19 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
> A lot of talk going on right now is around patent issues or licensing licensing concerns.   I'd like to step back for just a
> moment and ask a question:  If we could imagine that that is a non-issue, would there still be a problem?  It seems to me that
> their would be and the longer this conversation goes on and the more twists and turns it takes the more I feel like there is a
> lot of talking past and simple lack of agreement on what some things really even mean.

The problem here is that the charter review process allowed a substantive change
to the charter to be made by W3M fiat, without the review or approval of the WG
affected. W3M (represented by Jeff) wanted to know why the change was considered
substantive, and why it was considered a problem, which has resulted in some
interesting conversations (many of which should have probably happened before the
charter was amended by W3M).

I'm glad that the wandering format of the ML allowed some other points to come
up, e.g. patent commitments and dead-ended specs, since I think we can start up
some useful discussions on how to solve those problems better.

But in any case, the specifics of how the CSSWG should or should not incorporate
incubation through the WICG or otherwise, or what technology we should use for
discussion, is a topic for the WG lists; here it is only necessary to establish
the extent to which any broader W3C policies are problematic in a WG's execution,
and to discuss any tangents that are *also* about W3C policy as a whole.
Patent discussions are not off-topic, to the extent that they affect the WGs'
process, and Michael's points are such considerations.

As for the rest of your post,

On 12/25/2016 07:07 AM, fantasai wrote:
> there's definitely room for improvement in the CSSWG process as we struggle
> with scaling up, and formalizing some aspects of incubation tooling and
> practices will undoubtedly help

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 27 December 2016 12:54:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 27 December 2016 12:54:56 UTC