Re: How to reflect the "audience" in process issue prioritization?

Hi, Art–

All of the below seems reasonable.

It left me with an impression, though, that it was about smoothing out 
our process, rather than making W3C more open and transparent.

We've already got a mailing list to discuss process, and while some of 
that conversation has bled over into this WG, I'd prefer that we focus 
on this list more on issues specific to openness and transparency, 
rather than process.

But that's just my 2¢... others may differ.

Regards-
-Doug

On 8/27/14 7:04 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Based on some of the recent postings on the process list, it seems like
> it would be helpful to reflect some type of "audience"
> considerations/hierarchy when determining the priority of issues. For
> example, here is a first cut at a set of actors, highest to lowest
> priority:
>
> * Developers (does the issue affect developers or the deployment of a
> spec; will addressing the issue solve an urgent interop problem)
>
> * Implementers (does the issue affect implementers of a spec)
>
> * Technical group members (is the issue blocking progress on a spec; is
> the issue blocking adoption of a spec)
>
> * Editors (is the issue blocking advancement of a spec)
>
> * Process wonks (is the issue blocking any of the above or is it just
> fodder for those that feel some type of mandate to update process
> documents)
>
> Although I am a member of the process group, I don't expect members of
> this group to necessarily be interested in the details of the process
> group's deliberations. I also only intend to actively work on process
> issues that affect higher priority audiences. As such, I welcome
> feedback on the list above since it can help me justify/focus my process
> related efforts.
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
>

Received on Thursday, 28 August 2014 08:10:32 UTC