- From: Bernhard Heinser <bernhard.heinser@access-for-all.ch>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 17:35:55 +0200
- To: public-publishingbg@w3.org
Hi Daniel and all I think we are still in a preparatory phase to some extent and things must get to a point where the structure, tasks etc. have a clear architecture. Thus, in such a pre-phase I would suggest a pragmatical way of doing as proposed by Rick. When I read "will act LIKE a WG meeting" I understand it is NOT a formal WG meeting falling under the conditions requested by the formal regulation. Thus, my understanding is that people at the F2F meeting will work on further clarifying how things will be set up, isn't it? There will be the charter approved by then. The meeting would take place, I would expect there will be a draft non binding outcome paper. When the WG will be formed and will have its first meeting (tel conf, I assume) the charter together with the non binding outcome document of the informal F2F meeting would be the starting point for the WG. The members of the WG have then the opprtunity to transmit their inputs to the outcome paper. Is my understanding wrong? Yes for Daniel's comments on the late announcement etc. I understand that. However, here again, we should be pragmatical. I am sure that in the future this will be much better. Best. Bernhard Am 01.06.2017 um 11:44 schrieb Daniel Glazman: > Le 31/05/2017 à 07:24, Johnson, Rick a écrit : > >> so the meeting will act like a WG meeting (from a content perspective) > Errrrrr.... > > No, certainly not. The WG is not started, Members have not joined it, > and the W3C Patent Policy will *not* apply to things supposed to fall > into the future WG's basket, especially in the case of technical > details. I *strongly* recommend prompting the Legal and Strategy folks > at W3C before this meeting happens. Legally speaking, this is clearly > not a good idea to have technical chats falling into the WG's scope if > all attending organizations have not joined a launched WG yet. > >> Details: June 22nd & 23rd in NYC @ Adobe > Excuse me but could we please firmly avoid in the future a 3 weeks > notice like this one? Even if a ftf in June was previously mentioned, > this is not cool *at all* for international travelers. > > At W3C, meetings should [1] be announced a minimum of 8 weeks in > advance, and it's better for many reasons (work schedule, air fares, > lodging, etc.) to have them announced 3 months in advance. If last > paragraph of Process Section 3.2 allows shorter notices, that's not > that common in practice. > > Even if the WG is finally launched, Section 5.2.6 [2] of the Process is > very clear about the the first Group meeting: > > The date of the first face-to-face meeting of a proposed group must > not be sooner than eight weeks after the date of the proposal. > > That's a "must not", so 22nd/23rd of June could NOT be a WG ftf meeting > even if the WG was launched today. > >> Draft Agenda [3] > Could we please stop hosting Group process documents outside > of the w3.org umbrella so nobody can find them w/o the precise URI? > The BG Wiki [3] is the only place where this should happen. > > [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#ftf-meeting > [2] https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#WGCharter > [3] https://www.w3.org/wiki/PublishingBG/Main_Page > > </Daniel> > > -- Bernhard Heinser Mobile: +41 (0)79 703 37 71 Swiss Foundation Access for All / CEO (www.access-for-all.ch) bernhard.heinser@access-for-all.ch
Received on Thursday, 1 June 2017 15:36:37 UTC