Re: [battery] Mark spec as Discontinued Draft (#64)

We will discuss this issue among the chairs and process experts and will re-open as appropriate.

In short:
Your claims are not supported by the W3C Process. You claims have factual inaccuracies.

A longer version:
What I'm referring to in this discussion is the W3C Process, specifically expectations with respect to https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20231103/#implementation-experience and when that experience is formally collected. I also noted this is a Working Draft. I acknowledge you are not a participant of this Working Group and I am one of the editors of the specification. I am also a co-chair of this Working Group. These are facts.

I read between the lines you are not a fan of the W3C Process and people whose duty it is to make sure everyone follows the said process. Please do realize that document defines the rules by which we play. If you don't agree with the rules, you don't play. We acknowledge you have made a proposal for the Process WG, thanks for that. That is the right venue for process improvement ideas.

Maybe this articulation helps you understand this better: First, think about the implications of a general case of your claim: a W3C Working Draft without two or more implementations is to be discontinued. Would the W3C community support that? No. Is that what the W3C Process says? No. Is it normal for a W3C Working Draft to stay at a Working Draft stage for a longer time? Yes.

Your issue has been heard and a response has been recorded.  What comes to your contributions as a non-participant in this Working Group, I recommend you to use your time more productively for your own benefit, and for the benefit of the W3C community.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by anssiko
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/battery/issues/64#issuecomment-2124432732 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2024 10:20:26 UTC