W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > April 2014

RE: [admin] Can the HTMLWG please avoid CfC hell for "heartbeat" WDs?

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 15:19:22 +0000
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5a94f48de6f740499a1e5e3c42313bd4@BL2PR03MB418.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Please check out the Chairs proposed WorkMode Wiki page:
https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/WorkMode

I believe the following material covers your suggestion:

"Editors are expected to produce quarterly heartbeat documents. Such documents do not require the consensus of the working group to be published."

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:31 PM
To: public-html-admin@w3.org
Subject: [admin] Can the HTMLWG please avoid CfC hell for "heartbeat" WDs?
Importance: Low

Hi All,

Seeing YA long and unfruitful thread regarding a CfC to publish a so-called "heartbeat" WD, I'm wondering if there is `better` way forward ...

My take on [Proc2005] is that a group is _not required_ to have (nor
record) "consensus" to publish a heartbeat WD; in fact, Proc2005 appears to be silent on the matter. As such, is a Call for _Consensus_ accurate/appropriate? Instead, could the there be some type of heads-up/announcement about the intent to publish the WD and the Status section accurately reflect the group does not necessarily agree on the contents of the WD?  Otherwise, a CfC to publish a WD can become [an obnoxious and annoying] "bully pulpit" for detractors.

It also appears Proc2005 has no strict requirement that a WG _must_ publish a WD (or more mature) every 3 months. Does the WG's charter override that requirement? If yes, why; if no, how about relaxing the publication requirement so that these WDs are only published after substantive changes for which the proponents seek wide(r) review?

-Cheers, AB

[Proc2005] <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/>
Received on Friday, 4 April 2014 15:19:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:35 UTC