W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2005

Working group moving forward?

From: Joe Hildebrand <JHildebrand@jabber.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:50:08 -0700
Message-ID: <8D96EDA0AC04D31197B400A0C96C148010DFC711@corp.webb.net>
To: webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

I split this out into a separate thread so it's easier to find.

My take on what I've seen in the last several months of the WebDAV working
group is that if there was to be a BOF session today, I don't see any way
that a working group would get approved.  A couple of people would have
shown up to the meeting, no one except the person asking for the BOF would
have agreed to edit drafts, and there might only be weak hums for "is this
interesting" and "is this a good technical approach".

As far as where we are now, some of the current drafts might make much
better progress as individual submissions.  Keep in mind that in the current
process the WG chair has to shepard WG drafts through.  As much as editors
may not like this, it means that you have to get at least one WG chair fired
up enough about your draft to take on this responsibility.   That is a sales
job, not a technical job.  However, as individual submissions, all of the
process is up to the AD.  The downside for editors is that ADs are pretty
busy, and you have to sell your work to them.  Also, there's no way to force
consensus on an AD, since they can just say "no".  

My guess for BIND is that either Ted or Scott would want clarification on a
couple of the interoperability questions that Lisa has raised, regardless of
whether the answer can be inferred by a fully-informed reader.  This means
that moving to the individual process might or might not streamline the
process, depending upon how willing you were to make changes that they asked
for.

Frankly, I don't think the working group process is adding much in the way
of value for the drafts we are working on, compared with other WGs I've
participated in.  As such, it may be needless bureaucracy, and we ought to
think about decommissioning it.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand 


Confidentiality Note: 
This email is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email
message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible
for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is prohibited. If you have received this email in error,
please notify Jabber, Inc. immediately by telephone at +303-308-3231.
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2005 22:59:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:07 GMT