- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:15:11 +0100
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On 13/02/2014 19:30 , Arthur Barstow wrote: > 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/> I am rather consistently careful to only quote the parts of an email message which are needed in order to thread the discussion. In this instance, however, I have absolutely nothing to add. As stated before, I very strongly agree with Art here. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 09:15:24 UTC