- From: Renato Iannella <r@iannel.la>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:26:40 +1000
- To: public-council@w3.org
- Cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Some questions (from CG Chair that lives in a disadvantaged timezone :-) 1) The "Relative maturity of the technology” progress bar does not seem like there is a transparent “algorithm” driving it. I assume this has been successfully used in WGs/IGs and works well ? 2) I can’t see any real visual difference between a “living spec” and a “snapshot spec”. They are both called "Draft Community Group Report”. 3) I think “unmaintained” gives the wrong impression… It seems to mean that CG no longer cares about it… I suggest alternatives such as “archived” or “retired”. Also, as a general comment… it seems like CGs are reflecting more and more the typical W3C processes (spec maturity, chair elections…) There could be a sign there… Cheers…Renato > On 19 Feb 2026, at 05:54, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Minutes from our call today: > https://www.w3.org/2026/02/18-cg-program-minutes.html > > Seva presented on the new User Journey Graph (UJG) CG. Sarven > shared information about the Solid CG has run two Chair elections. > I presented some updates on the CG Spec lifecycle, revisions to the > specification styles, and an overview of the upcoming beta for those > new styles. > > I will schedule the next call soon. Thank you, >
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2026 03:27:10 UTC