Re: Group status...

yep, I remember asking once what did "everybody can join" mean in the main
W3 groups page :-)

No idea how I managed this time to get in without too many troubles ... I
feel lucky now (so yes, that is unfortunately a common problem)


On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>