- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:24:04 +0100
- To: public-publishingbg@w3.org
Le 09/02/2018 à 17:41, Avneesh Singh a écrit : > +1 to Makoto. The committee should be renamed to coordination committee. > Steering committee gives a different signal. Exactly what I said in my original message. > And one fundamental question. > Bill M. informed us that according to W3C and IDPF combination > documents, we need to continue with elected steering committee for 2 > years after the combination. > This is what we are struggling with. There are members of group that > feel that coordination committee is better way forward, but it is a > challenge to balance both. > How election based steering committee can have all the leads of groups > related to publishing. Or will the coordination committee coexist with > election based steering committee or are we looking for some other work > around? So these provisions in the W3C-IDPF merger agreement were introduced at the request of the former IDPF and in particular its board. It's then strange, to say the least, to now say it's fully binding and impossible to tweak. As far as I can understand and tell, I think W3C management would be open to *anything* reasonable if it's helpful, to *anything* providing an efficient organization delivering Standards under the wings of a correct architecture, provided it's done in compliance with W3C Process, W3C Community and Business Groups Process, and W3C common practice. For now, *everyone* knows the current organization has (rather deep) problems. So the decision is, IMHO, really in the hands of the former IDPF members and board. FWIW, and because my company is already Member of the CG, I will leave the BG if the provision stating the BG pre-approves CG publications is retained. I cannot accept, out of moral honesty, to be judge and judged. I cannot accept either a Standards track supposedly based on consensus of the membership of a Group ruled by the membership of another Group. We don't write Standards that way at W3C. </Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2018 07:25:01 UTC