W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-council@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Slides: 2014 Update - Community and Business Groups

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:20:27 -0400
Message-ID: <5391B20B.2030406@gmail.com>
To: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
CC: "w3c-ac-forum@w3.org Forum" <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
On 6/5/14 6:53 PM, Coralie Mercier wrote:
>> I prepared a slide-set "2014 Update: Community and Business Groups" 
>> for the AC meeting in case people had questions. They are public.
>>    http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/cm-0608-cg2wg/
>
> * slide "W3C leveraging Community Groups": w3-process CG bullet text 
> corrected
> * slide "Recent Transitions": added transition of final report of SVG 
> Glyphs in OpenType CG
> * slide "Transitions - longer-term": added Web Payments CG to call out 
> role in March 2014 Web Payments Workshop

Some additional feedback:

* #4 - Re Member participants, where you have "X participants" is that 
the total number of participants (including dups such as person Y is in 
5 CGs) or do you mean "unique" participants. (Not looking to create 
extra work for you but having both pieces of data would be interesting.)

* #5 - for the "non-Member orgs" row, is that indeed unique 
"organizations" [for some definition of "org"] or are you talking about 
unique individuals. (I'm wondering how you categorized a bunch of people 
that might have @gmail.com addresses.)

* #12 - I think the gist of the first bullet is more like "Signing the 
Contributor Agreement for groups that are explicitly NOT working on 
specifications is cumbersome". [BTW, I understand this concern and would 
hope KISS and common sense solutions would prevail (f.ex. the CG's 
charter effectively says "NO specs will be created") and we don't go 
down the path of creating different subclasses of CGs.]

* #12 and #13 - both of these touch on a shortage of information (f.ex. 
guidelines, BPs and such) about both how CGs transition to WGs and how 
to evaluate new WG proposals. I think these types of issues are 
important to address and perhaps a first step is to document the 
issue(s). I just created a new "Business and Community Group Processes" 
product <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/products/16>. How 
about we use that?

* #14 - I continue to think it was a mistake to call CG documents 
"specifications". Do we collectively feel the `ship has sailed` on this? 
If not, IMHO, changing the name to "reports" would be a better match and 
eliminate the confusion with WG specifications.

Lastly, I agree with others about the need to close non-active CGs as 
well as the need to provide a bit more general status of CGs (like what 
David proposed).

-Thanks, AB
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 12:20:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:16:36 UTC