Re: For consideration

On Sep 4, 2014 2:49 PM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/4/2014 1:30 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>
>> It feels a little sleazy to share blog posts on a ML,
>
>
> Not at all.
>
>
>>   but I spent a
>> great deal of time considering how to formulate and phrase ideas that
>> I would have otherwise simply done here, so I'm going to go ahead and
>> do it in this case.  Feel free to beat me up.
>>
>> (about generalized approach in 'tightening the feedback loop' -
>> totally complimentary to standards bodies)
>>
https://medium.com/@briankardell/web-standards-we-want-part-i-chapters-ca71985bf914
>>
>> (about a proposal relevant to Webizen, but more generally something
>> that the W3C could take up to enable something for the good of the Web
>> which goes significantly beyond any particular standards body)
>>
https://medium.com/@briankardell/the-web-standards-we-need-part-ii-guilds-cgs-1cd61b115751
>
>
> Some of these ideas we currently have under consideration for Webizens
(e.g. I see the "Developer Groups" in the current questionnaire to be
similar in spirit to your Chapters in Blog I). Would you agree?
>
I've purposely separated them intentionally:  I think this is something W3C
(and/or other bodies like ECMA or....) could attempt to coordinate, look
into, participate with/come speak at or try to use as some kind of pulse
measuring/data gathering means, but I think this belongs in the hands of
developers and it isn't about them affiliating with w3c.  I'd never want to
have a fee to participate.  Ever.  I want college kids, jrs, web designers,
hardcore developers in the industry to find ways to help each other and do
it in a way that helps provide collective value too.

> Other ideas (e.g. CG++) go beyond.  Will you be at TPAC?  It would be
great if we could have an unconference session around the CG++ idea.  There
are probably some issues that we should explore (e.g. CG's don't compel IP
commitments from companies that hold the IP - but we really need that for
WGs).
>
I'm trying to see if I can swing TPAC, I'd really love to be there, but I
have some hurdles atm.  Regardless of whether I am there personally though,
-someone- who can represent us well will, of this I am confident :-) when I
join a CG though, I have to disclose affiliation appropriately and it seems
a minor jump to add any missing disclosure or waiver with their affiliate.
I'm no lawyer, but it seems imminently doable.  Looking forward to more
discussion wherever it happens.

>>
>>
>