Re: AppCache post-mortem?

On 5/7/13 12:52 PM, ext Tobie Langel wrote:
> 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.

This is a real nice list Tobie and I agree we should try to do better.

Perhaps some type of developer facing IG ("Developers 'R Us") is a good 
way to go. I also wonder if WPD could play a roll here.

(FYI, about one year ago I proposed [1] WebApps create a new developer 
facing list since public-webapps is too much of a `firehose` for a lot 
of people [including me sometimes ;-)]. I must admit I was a bit 
surprised with the lack of feedback. Not sure why ...)

-AB

[1] 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/0395.html>


>
> Best,
>
> --tobie
>

Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 12:59:23 UTC