- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:24:26 +0100
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Cc: Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "public-nextweb@w3.org" <public-nextweb@w3.org>
On Monday, April 29, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 29, 2013 at 4:56 PM, François REMY wrote: > > > > I've been an IE for about 6 years on and off - and sure, it looks nice on my LinkedIn while I'm unemployed; but in practice I've found it really makes no difference than just subscribing to the public mailing list. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the insight. There's a difference, though, if you have the opportunity to attend telcons & some real-life meetings. Real-life discussion beats by a large marge any mail you could send ;-) > > Nothing stops you from showing up to any W3C meeting. 99% are open to the public and would welcome anyone's input (you certainly don't have to be an IE to attend them). Same applies with the teleconfs, btw (few groups actually ever hold teleconfs, and the ones that do - like HTML- don't care who shows up). If there was a perceived problem, then you could get transitioned, but that is rare. In other words, you should really transition to an IE if you are editing specifications or doing some significant undertaking in a WG (e.g., I edit a bunch of specs for the SysApp WG, so it makes sense for me to be an IE; I created a bunch of test suites for DAP, and edited a bunch of specs for WebApps also as an IE). If your are just reviewing specs and advocating certain things, then doing it as a public participant is fine. I'm not saying you guys should not push to become IE's in WGs if you want. I'm just saying that you don't get any benefits out of if (not even a lousy t-shirt!:)). -- Marcos Caceres
Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 16:24:56 UTC