- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:33:56 -0400
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, public-w3process@w3.org
On 7/5/2016 11:21 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote: > On 05/07/2016 15:03, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > >> But at the end of the day, the way the W3C process is set up, it is the >> responsibility of the Working Group to move reports through the process >> towards the recommendation. That makes it the WGs responsibility to >> enable, empower, cajole, pressure, all stakeholders to do the work >> necessary to move the work forward. Having milestones can be a useful >> marker - it represents the consensus of the WG of what they believe >> should get done and it can be used with stakeholders as part of the >> process to enable, empower, cajole, and pressure. > Pressure? Wow, wow, wow. Jeff, do you really expect Chairs can > "pressure" browser vendors if what Chairs are asking for is not line > with vendors' current strategy? Do you remember what it took to > block - and only for a while - the prefix issue? I was merely enumerating different verbs that apply in different circumstances. > > Responsibility of the "Working Group"? But Jeff, a WG is only the > sum of its Members! Tell the AC-Reps, not the Chairs... > > Only the Consortium itself can put pressure here, and I really mean > W3M through the Process and we did ask PLH to intervene a few times in > the past. But even W3M's help can be void if vendors reply they have > more important stuff on their radar at that time. > And we have no provision saying, for instance, that a CR that > remains more than 6 months at that stage should go back to WD or even > be removed from TR/. Such a threat would not even be effective, that's > our "good enough to ship" issue. I don't see that we have any disagreements on the imperfect levers to move things forward nor on the absence of a W3C Police Force to enforce the will of the consortium. > > </Daniel> > >
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2016 15:34:00 UTC