- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:46:05 +0200
- To: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>, "Karl Dubost" <karl@la-grange.net>
- Cc: "'Arnaud Le Hors'" <lehors@us.ibm.com>, public-vision-newstd@w3.org
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 00:28:28 +0200, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net> wrote:
> Le 7 juil. 2010 à 13:00, Lawrence Rosen a écrit :
>> Apparently, for some, the requirement to define the scope of the
>> innovation desired in the specification is itself often an impediment
>> to innovation.
...
> The W3C Process document has not been created in one day. It contains a
> lot of history, … more exactly stories. Often, each additional piece of
> the process has been justified by something happening, a voice from the
> community, a reproach, etc.
...
> Maybe the Process document could be greatly improved if it was connected
> to specific stories justifying the way it is built.
I think that actually makes a lot of sense. Some of the stories, though,
simply cannot be told in public. A descriptive document explaining why
each piece of the process is there would make sense - but who is the
historian who can find that stuff?
Q. "Why do we have CR?"
A. "So we don't do another CSS2 Rec"
Q. Why do we require a scoped charter?
A. So we get agreement to the patent policy.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Saturday, 10 July 2010 13:47:01 UTC