- 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>
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