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:

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."


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