- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:57:56 +0200
- 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