RE: [pwg] What are we trying to accomplish?

Hi Daniel,

We are attempting to make things more understandable to everyone and avoid the situation you've described. Any contributions to that end would be most appreciated.

Thanks,
Tzviya

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Glazman [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 10:12 AM
To: public-publ-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [pwg] What are we trying to accomplish?

Le 09/02/2018 à 18:55, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken a écrit :

> Please do not tell us that others are wrong. Please do not tell us why 
> the charter is flawed. Please do not tell us that we are in pursuit of 
> an errant dream. If you have these opinions, they are important to 
> share, but please do not mix discussions of chartering and scope of 
> the group and charter with technical issues. It leads to endless back 
> and forth and prevents us from getting anything accomplished.
> 
> To those who have been sharing implementations and positive 
> discussion, thank you, and keep up the good work.

Ahem.

So let's go back to the technical side, following your wishes above:
several non-n00b people here don't understand where we're TECHNICALLY going to, don't understand why we're chosing that given TECHNICAL path and why it's the best choice.

In terms of REC track, it means that the WG is heading to a suboptimal, if not problematic, vote on PR and REC transitions. Is this WG going to call it, are you going to call it, a negative discussion or can we be proactive and discuss the issue before it becomes highly critical (said with my AC-Rep hat on)?

</Daniel>

Received on Monday, 12 February 2018 13:41:43 UTC