W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > January 2017

Re: Can we get consensus on what incubation means (was: Re: WICG Incubation vs CSSWG Process)

From: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 06:50:30 +0000
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Cc: David Singer <singer@mac.com>, Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20170106065030.GP9972@people.w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 01:20:25PM +0900, Florian Rivoal wrote:
> I think this also highlights something that we haven't been very clear about: In my mind, there ought be be a large difference between incubating a spec that could be part of an existing WG, and incubating a community that could become a new WG.
> 
> Overall, I think the idea of starting new areas as a CG instead of immediately as a WG until the community has proved itself is fine, even though the criteria for the CG->WG graduation is still too fuzzy and a source of friction.
> 

I don't think it's possible, nor desirable, to define all the possible criteria
for the CG->WG transition (of group, not transition of spec).

> On the other hand, I am much more skeptical of needing a separate venue to incubate specs that fall in the scope of an existing group.

 +1
It looks like a recipe for failure, the only interesting aspect is to involve 
more people from non-W3C-member companies, but surely that could be done
on WG public fora.

[...]
> Creating a separate venue to work on a different stages of the same scope causes inherent tensions: conflicting senses of ownership, speed bumps or road-blocks around the transition point, power struggles over who has the greatest ability to influence things, disfunction of the pipeline as a whole if cooperation breaks down...
> 

Big +1 


-- 
Carine Bournez /// W3C Europe
Received on Friday, 6 January 2017 06:50:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 6 January 2017 06:50:47 UTC