Re: Endgame

Replying a year later (I know, I know), because Coralie Mercier is now 
asking what we should do.

As part of the W3C Headlights 2013 exercise [1] to set next major area 
of focus for W3C, I lead a task force (CG2WG) [2], chartered until July 
2013, to determine which Community Groups and Business Groups should 
transition their work to a W3C Working Group.

I need to answer questions like:
------------------------------------------
Is your Community Group or Business Group:
* Active and ongoing and nearing completion
* Inactive because it has completed its work
* Active and ongoing and far from completion
* Inactive because the original scope is no longer relevant or because 
the CG never got momentum
------------------------------------------

There should probably be an "all of the above" option, right?

Do we hope to transition this to a working group?  That would make me 
very happy (even without my participation), but I'm not sure if we're 
wanted.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,
Simon

On 3/8/12 1:52 PM, Chris Lilley wrote:
> On Thursday, March 8, 2012, 11:46:01 AM, Robin wrote:
>
> RB> PS: what's our endgame with this? Do we want to refine the draft
> RB> and then throw it over to the CSS WG?
>
> These are several options.
>
> It could be argued to be in scope of the CSS WG or argued to be out
> of scope (I can do either, which would you like?)
>
> In the same way that not every specification that uses XML has to be
> published by the XML Core WG, not every specification that uses
> Selectors has to be published by CSS WG especially if, as here, no
> change is made to the Selectors spec.
>
> It could be published as a W3C Note, but then it wouldn't have the RF
> goodness and would not necessarily have demonstrated implementability
> or interop.
>
> It could be developed here and then a fast WG proposed, chartered to
> take the existing spec through LC and CR.
>
> It could be developed here and then the CSS WG rechartered to ad this
> explicitly in scope (and perhaps form a taskforce as a subgroup) to
> take the existing spec through LC and CR.
>
> It could be published as an Internet Draft and then taken through the
> IETF standards track as an RFC.
>
> In terms of speed, a new WG would be best and in terms of widest IPR
> coverage, a subgroup of CSS WG would be best.
>


-- 
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/

Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 13:05:32 UTC