RE: Group status...

On Apr 27, 2013 2:28 PM, "François REMY" <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
wrote:
>
> Yep, you've done a very good work of spreading our ideas to key people,
Thank you for all that 'invisible' work.
>
> It isn't entirely clear to me which specific questions you were asked to
answer. However, if the W3C ask about the group priorities, my personal
thoughts would be:
>
> - Getting more CSSOM specifications implemented to allow harnessing the
power of the CSS and Layout engines.
> - Getting the ES Proxy spec implemented to enable a full emulation of
WebIDL objects.
> - Getting the shadow dom & web components spec implemented to allow more
HTML/DOM-related polyfills.
>
> Regarding the 'transition to legit working groups' statement, I'm not
against transforming this WG in an official working group but I guess it
will be difficult to have weekly telcons for most of us. I wonder if that's
a requirement.
>
> However, if it gives this group a legitimacy to ask to assist as observer
to some other groups (or, to the contrary, people working inside some other
working groups sending us weekly reports), why not? Those people could
probably have as role to evaluate the extensibility of features and make
comments about that without interfering with the general working of those
groups (as stated in our scope declaration).
>
> It would also feed the group with fresh content and possibilities to act
on active discussions (instead of opening discussions that some group may
not be interested to have right at the time we open them).
>
>
> ________________________________
> > Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:41:44 -0400
> > From: bkardell@gmail.com
> > To: public-nextweb@w3.org
> > Subject: Group status...
> >
> >
> > I know it is very early days for this group, i have transitioned most
> > of my efforts recently toward expanding membership to folks we would
> > need to work closely with in order to advance an idea to a relevant
> > committee or wg or help establish and prioritize pieces of the platform
> > that make something difficult or even impossible to prollyfill with any
> > level of pairity, encouraging folks like Yehuda and Dave Herman to
> > share additional discussions and related ideas that have occurred
> > offlist, etc.
> >
> > The other day, as chair I received a W3C questionnaire from a group
> > reviewing cgs and setting priorities going forward/which cgs should
> > transition to legit w3c working groups, etc.
> >
> > I think this question should be posed to you all as some belong to
> > vendors, foundations, committees where that is a really important bit.
> >
> > So... Comments?

It is an unfortunate time to be asking us this question to be honest, since
we haven't even begun the discussions about how that would work... I have
avoided opening that discussion until a few others (hopefully) get approval
to join, but that is just how the w3c schedule works out.

I think at this point, the question is more to folks whose affiliation is
with member orgs.  The distinction is that Communiry Groups and Working
Groups (at least currently) have very distinct legal participation
implications and therefore committing to join a CG is actually a more
difficult process at most companies whose AC is charged with getting legal
checks.  This is actually why a few folks aren't in yet, despite having
clicked "join" quite some time ago.  W3C WG agreement is considerably more
comfortable to legal in many cases (anyone from a member org besides me
feel free to clarify/dispute thus), but it is partially because the charter
is well defined...i am not sure if it would be plausible with ours as it
stands.