- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 18:52:54 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: public-closingthegap@w3.org
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: > • At least some of the feedback comes in the form of a grumpy gripe in > the middle of a more or less unrelated discussion. I'm not blaming Tobie > here ;-p I had a bad day yesterday. Sincerely sorry for the rant. I know you know I understand the dynamics very well, so I'm not going to discuss those further. The main problem is the time commitment required for developers to lobby a given feature. This pretty much makes it impossible for developers who are not paid to do so to have a say in the development of Web standards. Which is a shame. Key is to reduce the required time commitment of developers while keeping a high signal to noise ratio for WG and spec editors. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but there's a couple of things that could be useful: - The number of entry points for developer comments/requirements has to be kept to a minimum, max three (HTML, CSS, JS APIs), and should be unrelated to how groups are partitioned. - There needs to be some form of cross-group instance (an IG, maybe?) that receives these comments/requirements and filters them. - That cross-group instance must comprise devs, and also folks that help them navigate the way W3C works. - WGs could go to this group to ask for feedback on specific APIs, and this group would have a good way to broadcast that signal to developers and quickly gather feedback (a blog? a github repo?, not sure). - W3C members who care about devs could have an easy way to donate funds to this group which would help developers travel to F2F events, etc. This is just a brain dump at this point. I'd really love for us to solve this problem. Best, --tobie
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 16:53:03 UTC