- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:56:42 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
- CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, public-hypertext-cg <public-hypertext-cg@w3.org>
On Tuesday, March 8, 2011, 6:23:52 PM, Robin wrote: >> 4. Rather than explicitly identify some of the W3C Groups as "(Public)" (and some are missing that tag such as WebApps), perhaps tagging should just go the hopefully very small set of WGs that are still Private/Member. RB> DAP is also not listed as public. (Yes it is) RB> DAP's description seems to have pasted from what people thought RB> the MWI would be in the XXth century. Heh. Fixed with a paste from what the DAP page says. RB> Pardon my ignorance, but do we still have a Forms WG? Its charter RB> lists it as having expired in 2009. According to the (Member-only,no idea why) list of W3C Working Groups http://www.w3.org/Member/Mail/ it ends 2012-03-31 I agree that charters should be updated with revised end dates when groups are extended. But that also seems to have happened: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2009/charter2010 "End date 31 March 2012" RB> Do we expect the SYMM WG to last beyond its current extension RB> which runs out at the end of the month? It's not important but I RB> not that its WG page states that it's the "3nd" SYMM WG :) I'm not sure. I thought the plan was that they would not be extended any more and that they would spend the last 6 months of their time in coordination ... I will check back on what the current plan is. RB> The TTWG is also marked as having expired in 2009. Again from http://www.w3.org/Member/Mail/ 2011-03-31 RB> This made me RB> think that perhaps charters should be required to mention RB> extensions, and that all closed groups should have a message RB> clearly saying so on their home page. Agree to both. RB> WebCGM expires at the end of next month, will it be renewed? I doubt it. RB> Conversely, a flurry of new groups (notifications, performance, RB> audio, real time) have been or are being chartered that should probably be listed. No problem for the ones that *are* chartered. For the ones that have not yet been created, RB> I'm not aware that we have any coordination with any of the RB> organisations listed. Some individual groups may (e.g. I'm RB> guessing WebCGM talks to ISO and TT to ATSC) but those aren't RB> CG-level. As far as I can see ECMA is the only one, though maybe RB> we should include Khronos as well. Khronos relates to a couple, agreed. So does ISO(mainly SC 29) RB> Just because pedantry is universally enjoyable, given that RB> bi-weekly is ambiguous, should we say fortnightly? It said fortnightly a few revisions back and was changed to bi-weekly due to review comments because apparently 'fortnightly' is not a well understood concept. I changed it to 'every two weeks' which is hopefully clear. RB> "When the Co-chair put a question" -> Co-chairs. Later it becomes "Co-Chairs". Yup, fixed. RB> "possibly after a formal vote" I'm curious as to how that would RB> work. I don't have time to perform an in-depth analysis but it RB> doesn't seem entirely clear from the Process. In such a vote RB> Members can only have at most one vote, but this doesn't seem RB> appropriate. Also, Good Standing normally applies but it's not RB> considered relevant in CGs. More importantly, it would probably be RB> a very daft thing to do anyway. I'd recommend we remove this RB> mention. If we disagree with the CG consensus we'll simply make RB> snide comments on Twitter, as usual. I agree that the voting procedure (not that we have ever needed to use it) for WGs is clearly not applicable here. Removed. -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 14:57:33 UTC