AW: AW: Getting the ball rolling on a better W3C process

Hi Dom,

Absolutely.  The list is a result of brainstorming, which is by definition subjective :-)
I take such points as hints that there is an issue hidden underneath.

The core issues will have to be brought to the surface and that will be part of the challenge as we progress.

One way of doing that would be to create a questionnaire, perhaps for the AC, to ask them to back up the individual points made with concrete examples.

We should not try to change W3C process unless there is a sufficient sample size that says there is in fact a problem.
But we also need to keep in mind that only the vocal few will in fact complain and the rest will remain silent.

Another method would be to look at the points based on the experience already present in CG, work out a clear problem statement and reflect that back to the WGs for commentary for correctness.


Once we have captured whatever people feel is the set of problems, we can work on solutions.
Dependencies, paint points and particular documents or parts thereof will become apparent in the process.

Kai






> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Dominique Hazael-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. November 2011 14:20
> An: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich
> Cc: public-w3process@w3.org; Charles McCathieNevile
> Betreff: Re: AW: Getting the ball rolling on a better W3C process
> 
> Le mercredi 16 novembre 2011 à 10:36 +0100, Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich a
> écrit :
> > I could co-chair with Charles.
> 
> Thanks for the offer, Kai! I've marked you as co-chair of the CG.
> 
> > Jumping ahead to some later mails, I support Charles' view to tackle
> the issues by priority.
> 
> That sounds like a good idea in principle, but if there are some
> interdependencies between issues, this could get messy.
> 
> Looking at the list of points you've summarized in your blog post, it
> sounds to me that some points are opinions ("the process is too long
> and
> too complex"), some are facts but not necessarily issues ("process
> documents do not match the development model we use"), some are
> expressions of two conflicting requirements ("the draft in TR space is
> continuously out dated" vs "stakeholders need stability").
> 
> I think it would be useful for someone to go through the list of
> points,
> and try to identify:
> * the actual (presumably negative) impact of the said point on WGs (or
> on specific roles within WGs)
> 
> * the document that creates that pain point (could be the process
> document, pubrules, the transition request document, or some
> undocumented convention)
> 
> Dom

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 13:46:18 UTC