- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 15:46:14 -0600
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- 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
Thank you, Ian. Points well taken. Michael Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> writes: > 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 -- C. M. Sperberg-McQueen Black Mesa Technologies LLC http://blackmesatech.com
Received on Friday, 5 July 2024 21:46:40 UTC