On Aug 6, 2014 1:54 PM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > > > So I can't tell. Did my proposal accomplish this or fall short of this? > Close I think. I didn't see the presentation, so I'm not quite sure how it was perceived, but it felt a little wishy washy on goals and how. What I articulate above very nearly fits in w3c existing tech and structure and is relatively simple and pointed, call it a RG (representation group) rather than a CG, instead of 5 backers to be viable it takes N (or a total pledge amount), and it simply acts as an org affiliation - chairs are ACs and they are just orgs like any other. Its entire purpose is simply to allow developer collective participation without the lopsided burden (requiring them to form a legal entity is kind of like a poll tax).
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 18:44:15 UTC