- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 11:34:01 -0500
- To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Cc: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@fromoldbooks.org>, Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>, Adam Retter <adam@exist-db.org>, Team Community Process <team-community-process@w3.org>, public-expath@w3.org
Hi Michael, [snip] > Having two distinct groups helps make the difference in their goals > clearer. > > If the ongoing cost to W3C of a quiescent community group is high, then > the cost/benefit ratio may be unpropitious. But the alternative costs > are potentially also high: the cost of later starting a new group from > scratch to continue the work of the old discontinued group, or the > (intangible, I guess) cost to W3C of people deciding that W3C is not > where certain work is going to be done. > > Weren't community groups sold at the outset as a way for W3C to support > some kinds of technical work at minimal cost to the consortium? If the > ongoing cost to W3C of quiet groups is high enough to merit Ian's > attention, I wonder what went wrong with the original idea. (Or > possibly how I managed to misunderstand the original idea.) I think there is value in clear communication about what work is actually happening. Every six months or so we close inactive groups (say, 15 or 20). We think that helps reduce the noise. There is also a benefit to this periodic outreach. In a healthy number of cases, it prompts new activity, published updates, cleanup, and so forth. The cost of quiet groups is not necessarily high, but the value of touch points is high. Ian -- Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> https://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 917 450 8783
Received on Friday, 5 July 2024 16:34:13 UTC