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

Re: After 5

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:57:56 +0200
Message-ID: <54195B24.30409@w3.org>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, public-html@w3.org
Hi Daniel,

On 16/09/2014 15:47 , Daniel Glazman wrote:
> On 16/09/2014 14:03, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> # We can change pretty much everything
>> # Unhappiness is not a fatality
>> # Developers
>> # Doing more than talking
>
> It may sound a little bit disruptive but I think the way the CSS
> Working Group works and operates is worth looking at...

It doesn't sound disruptive at all to me :) I don't think it should come 
as a surprise that I've been looking very closely at how the CSS WG 
operates in thinking this over. And indeed I found many good things.

> - we don't have one main spec of 1000 pages, we have modules
 > - most of our modules are lightweight

Yup. That strikes me as a good idea, especially with the proper tooling 
(we've been chatting with Tab about that).

> - there is no such thing as CSS 3 or CSS 4

I certainly think that makes sense. Shipping matters, but versioning, 
especially across the board, a lot less so.

> - we don't have a strong process like the HTML WG
 > - the Chairs are only chairing, not leading, and they very, very
 >    rarely enforce rules

Actually we no longer have a strong process either.

> - we moved between 2008 and now from 30 members (10 active)
>    and 30 specs to ~100 (~30 active) and 65+ specs
> - www-style is still a good contact point with the community, it's
>    in fact often a hiring pool...
> - pragmatism-over-process is a core value of the CSS WG

I really find nothing disruptive in all of this :)

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2014 09:58:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:46:10 UTC