Re: Group status...

I for one would enjoy the Invited Expert status, personally speaking.
Reading the reqs 
(http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#invited-expert-wg)
it does seem a bit rigid, but I would argue that's the benefit.



On 4/27/13 12:44 PM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>On Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 7:28 PM, François REMY 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.
>It's not. Few groups hold weekly teleconferences. It's not a very good
>use of people's time.
>> 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).
>
>Agreed.  
>>  
>> 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).
>>  
>
>I don't think it would actually change our situation much. It would also
>potentially alienate some folks who would either need to become full w3c
>members or go through the process of getting Invited Expert status.
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 15:30:52 UTC