- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:01:51 +0100
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > That said, it is true that the HTML WG has been at times quite > adversarial and people have felt unable to contribute, which is a > management problem. To some extent that is being addressed, but there is > progress that needs to be made still. In particular, the complaints I > have fielded relate to people whose level of english, combined with the > responsibilities of the rest of their job, do not permit them to even > follow some discussions, which will condemn us to go over some things > several times. Precisely. I would like to remind all the readers of this thread that W3C members commit to 20% FTE participation in the WG. It's just plain impossible to follow the massive flow of data coming out of the mailing- list and IRC if you're not working full-time or almost full-time on HTML. I have stopped following the list on a normal basis because it's just not possible to do something else. The problem is not Ian, Anne or anyone else personnally. The problem is the time they can spend on the spec, and the time W3C Members like myself can spend on it. Between 20% and 100%, the gap is too wide. We can't follow. Side note : next time I hear during a WG face-to-face meeting someone say "I don't care about what you say", I'll make a so big fuss it's going to shake like a large-scale earthquake. I won't repeat. There are things that are *absolutely* unacceptable. To Karl : you said "The HTML WG is *right now* operating under the requirements of W3C Process Document". I object. The above, 1st paragraph, severely breaks W3C Process. </Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2007 20:02:02 UTC