W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2013

Re: TPWG (and PAG) extension

From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:06:57 -0800
Message-Id: <CD764CB8-C37D-4438-8AF2-B7BE5BB60ED3@aleecia.com>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>

Thanks for your clarification. This is helpful. I think more time for a newer co-chair is absolutely within the set of reasonable responses for why the charter is extended. That thinking was not mentioned this morning in the admittedly very short time you took to speak. Thank you. 

I continue to question why the charter was extended beyond the projected date for LC at this juncture. I wanted to trust that discussions happened with appropriate consideration but today it sounded as if this decision was treated as a routine extension. Perhaps there were additional details missing due to time constraints. 

On Feb 13, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> wrote:

> Since there were some questions about the background for the extension:  When we previously extended the group through 31 January 2013, we pre-announced a workshop for fall 2012, where we created the opportunity for discussion about possible changes to the charter. That workshop occurred in Berkeley, and did not result in consensus for particular charter changes.

Based on the workshop call for papers[1] and the subsequent agenda[2], how were people to know the Berkeley conference was an appropriate forum for TPWG charter discussions? I remember finding this all confusing at the time. Perhaps I missed communications inviting charter discussion.

As happens, I do not share Alan's desire to put UI for browsers into scope. At all. Yet I do believe the process has been suboptimal. Some of the virtues of W3C are openness, transparency, and a fair playing field. As a supporter of the status quo, I would rather risk losing on important substance than not have an effective forum for Alan to dissent. If Alan's views carry the day in a reasonable decision making process then, as Matthias would say, tough luck for me. Fair process matters. I am a fan of W3C which is why I want these sorts of things to go better, to be open, to be utterly beyond any reasonable question or reproach. How do we get there now? You can see how "let's talk after the work is entirely concluded" does not seem a satisfactory response to address Alan's concerns.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/dnt-ws/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2012/dnt-ws/agenda.html
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 23:07:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:22 UTC