Re: Web standards, Openness and Transparency

On August 8, 2014 at 11:05:57 AM, Arthur Barstow (art.barstow@gmail.com) wrote:
> On 8/5/14 6:21 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > I'd like to change the way things work to allow me to:
> >
> > 1. put living documents on TR
> > 2. have a CC0 license (or cc-by)
>  
> Re #1 - this issue is included in the list of AB priorities wiki
> [AB-prios] (I believe it was Chris Wilson that proposed it). I created
> W3Process [Issue-106] to make sure it doesn't get "lost" . Other than
> that, I'm not sure what this group should do about it and I trust you
> will keep the W3Process group "honest" ;-).

Yes, the debate has been going on for a long time - so arguments and evidence is already in place for the W3C to make some kind of informed decision on this. 

Given that the actual AB list, discussion, and calls are not open to the public, this group can be ready to push back if any roadblocks emerge on the side of the AB or W3C. We can also review any proposals and provide feedback - given that this affects spec Editors and this group contains a few spec editors. 

But you are correct - right now, we just take a holding pattern.   

> BTW, I seem to recall there is some ongoing prototyping re #1 above. Is
> that true, and if so, where is that discussion happening?

I think Robin is on to that... also, the TAG is trying something with the Promises Guide (Domenic and Yves are good people to ask) - I read that in the TAG minutes. I don't have any concrete information apart from that.  

> [A long time ago I subscribed to spec-prod to make a related proposal
> for #1 and unsubscribed within 48 hrs since the replies I received were
> some of the most anti-social e-mails that even a thick-skinned person
> like me can tolerate.]

Yeah, I've been on a few punch-ups there too about this. I'm soooo going to enjoy pointing and laughing when we get this through :) 
 
> Re #2 - I created W3Process [Issue-107]. If you think there is something
> this group should do about it, please let me know; otherwise, it seems
> like W3Process is the most appropriate venue for it.

Agree.

Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 15:23:59 UTC