W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: [css3-color] #rrggbbaa annotation, do we need to change the process?

From: Eduard Pascual <herenvardo@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 02:43:19 +0200
Message-ID: <w2w6ea53251004071743t1d544975u6adc51cbc5187907@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:46 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> As one member of the working group, I'd like to see that not be a
> problem.  We should encourage people who aren't officially members
> of the working group to help with things that need to be done.
> Then, at some level of involvement, we can deal with the
> administrative hassle of officially making somebody an invited
> expert if that needs to be done.
IMO, the problem is not the bureaucracy itself, but how scary that
bureaucracy looks to an outsider.

> Why does this need to be formalized and have requirements?  I think
> part of what the WHATWG has done well is say that anybody can
> (and is encouraged to) contribute.
The "reasons" would be a mix of misconceptions and prejudices I had
about the W3C's process; which Tab already dispelled with his previous
reply. That's why I already told that you could trash that whole
proposal.

Here it goes an alternative, simpler, and probably more useful proposal:
Under http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work#contribute, you might
consider elaborating a bit further, mentioning for example that
volunteers on task X or task Y would be appreciated. The way it's
written it yields the impression that "outsiders" are only welcome to
provide feedback, and for anything else they should join the WG before
they can do anything else (I know this impression is wrong; but if a
text can yield such a wrong impression, maybe it's worth reviewing
it).
It might also be useful to have some FAQ or the like describing which
are the most needed details for feature proposals (I haven't heard the
term "use-case" before joining this and the WHATWG lists; so I
wouldn't expect the average newcomer to describe their suggestions in
terms of use-cases and requirements, even if they are capable of doing
so, unless requested somewhere), what tasks may use some extra hands,
etc.
Basically, Tab had highlighted that any contributor on the list could
undertake the tasks I described on my "external collaborator"
proposal... the point is: are the contributors aware that they are
welcome to undertake those tasks?
Oh, and while you are at it, you might consider updating the broken
link "http://www.alistapart.com/stories/readspec/" to the updated
address "http://www.alistapart.com/articles/readspec/": it's a quite
good article, and I think a working link would be really useful :P

Regards,
Eduard Pascual

PS: There are some tasks I might volunteer to help with. I definitely
have the time for it; I have enough interest to strongly commit to
them; but I'm not sure if I have the skills/expertise for it. What
would be the best way to proceed?
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 00:44:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:26 GMT