Re: Getting the ball rolling on a better W3C process

Hi Dom,

thanks for getting this started.

On Nov 15, 2011, at 16:45 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> I think our first goal should be to refine what topics we want to work
> on, what outcome we expect from the group; I think it's fairly clear
> that the Advisory Board would be the ultimate recipient of our input,
> but whether that input is a list of issues, and/or a list of solutions
> is not yet entirely clear to me (at least).

I would rather not submit a list of issues without suggested solutions (which maybe outlines, may have multiple options, may indicate lack of consensus, etc.). Suggestions of where we could go can only help clarify the issues being raised, and I think it best for the brainstorming to take place in the open rather than in the darkest recesses of the AB's best-defended dungeon :)

Beyond that I think that the list of issues on the CG's blog is already a great one — if we fix if only half of those we'll have achieved a huge lot. I would suggest taking them individually as issues (perhaps sometimes grouped together) and then having some of us take stabs at making proposals for them in the wiki. Rinse, repeat, you all know the drill.

If everyone is agreeable to this approach, I'd like to take a stab at "ideas that the group might have might not fit the charter, but amending the charter takes too long". I think that there's a reasonably simple suggestion that could be implemented reasonably quickly (FLW, I know). Additionally, I think that there are a few simple things that we could do to improve how charters are handled in general (centralise them under /charters/ in a way that's managed the way /TR/ is so that people stop finding outdated ones, provide a decent template so that people stop just copying off one another, include guidelines, stop making finger-in-the-wind roadmaps that have not once matched reality).

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2011 16:01:51 UTC