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

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

From: Alberto Lepe <dev@alepe.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:32:36 +0900
Message-ID: <p2o8c9249b71004081832pf7a2cc65o60bbbd649462f96c@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
As a newcomer, I found all these comments really useful to understand
how W3C works in general. I was amazed when I first read that in 2005
the #rrggbbaa feature was suggested and was not added because it was
"out of time". I think this prove in some way that sometimes the
process slows down some proposals.

Could it be possible to divide module stages into chapter stages? This
is,  that each chapter (inside each module) could have its own
recommendation level? In that way new proposals could be easily added
in "WD" status (if would be a complete new chapter) or pull back only
the chapter in which will be introduced. If one chapter is somehow
related to other, then both chapters should be pulled back. The
maturity of a module could be evaluated in terms of its chapter's
maturity. If editors are too busy, then contributors could work in
independent chapters and then submit it to the editor for approval.

I think it could be really helpful if many of the proposal could
follow a similar (but not the same) path as in Ubuntu brainstorm.
Maybe as Eduard proposed, let some "contributors" to pull some ideas
from the mailing list and let people to vote and comment in the W3C
brainstorm site (please don't think the name is a rip-off ^.^). My
feeling is that some comments can easily get lost in the mailing list
if there are no follow-ups. One advantage could be that editors and WG
members could just focus in those ideas with higher approval levels.

Sorry if my English is not very good.
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 01:33:09 GMT

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