W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > January 2003

Process Enforcement Re: XHTML 2.0 and Semantics

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:35:42 -0500
Message-Id: <a05200f0aba4a319f0103@[]>
To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>, www-qa@w3.org

Process issues and organization of WG life should be discussed on www-qa@w3.org

But there's an interesting comment here. How to ensure that all the 
public comments are taken into account

At 20:59 +0000 2003-01-14, Jim Ley wrote:
>"Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>
>>  At 20:03 +0000 2003-01-14, Jim Ley wrote:
>>  > In theory the public can raise issues which have to be addressed,
>>  >but in reality these can be ignored without difficulty.  Engaging the
>>  >is difficult of course, but the W3 has to take public issues seriously,
>>  >needs a process to achieve this.  The current laissez-fair attitude to
>>  >process document, means that there's little the public can do often but
>>  >Rant. *
>>  That's definitely wrong :)
>No, you're quoting what the Process document says, I agree what it says is
>adequate to ensure Public comments are acknowledged, however since the
>public have no power of appeal when the process document is not followed, W3
>WGs are free to ignore the Process document (consider the SVG working group,
>it's ignored the process documents requirement on its Charter for at least a
>year, nothing us public can do but regularly rant about it.)
>Formal Addressing of public issues also routinely fail, perhaps because the
>WG fails to monitor the public mailing lists or whatever, but the process
>fails, and the process gives the public no method to appeal (it also has no
>mailing list to raise process issues, which is where this should be, not

Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 16:38:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:30 UTC