W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2004

Re: On Working Group Membership - Re: SVG 1.2 Comment: 4 Flowing text and graphics

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 09:47:40 -0000
Message-ID: <02bd01c4bff7$d3a7e6c0$418f9bd9@Snufkin>
To: <www-svg@w3.org>

"Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
>> And to be an editor of a specification published through a Working Group
>> there is a requirement be a member of the group (7.8 in the process doc)
>> so that sentence does not make sense, you cannot be both an editor and
>> not a member of the SVG Working Group - which I guess is why I've never
>> understood your previous corrections.
>
> I'm a member of the XBL Task Force, which takes 20% of my time, which
> satisfies my required commitment according to the SVG charter.

Could you explain how you've managed to fulfil your obligation of "being 
familiar with the relevant documents of the Working Group, including minutes 
of past meetings. "  when you said in your previous post that you hadn't 
made yourself familiar with previous drafts and weren't even aware that a 
vote to move last call happened!  Also the process doesn't make any 
exception for 20% of your time, so whilst that may satisfy SVG charter 
obligations on delivering work, that does not offer you a get out.

It seems to me your membership of the SVG Working Group (good to see you now 
admit you are a member, unlike your previous "corrections") is deliberately 
designed to circumvent the W3 Process Rules, and you had no intention of 
fulfilling the obligations of membership of the working group.  Whilst this 
may get around 7.8, it just brings you into violation of 6.2.1.7, but I 
guess that would only risk your good standingness, which would've meant you 
wouldn't've been able to vote in any case.

I do not think W3 process is taken seriously enough (look at the number of 
WG failing their heartbeat requirements, or tracking errors in 
specifications) and it is a concern, for a member of a working group to not 
feel any point in tracking the documents published, shows to me contempt for 
the process document, rather than any actual attempt to follow it.

Jim. 
Received on Monday, 1 November 2004 09:47:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:52 UTC