Dom had said...
> Kai said
>> Jumping ahead to some later mails, I support Charles' view to
>> tackle the issues by priority.

Note that I didn't say we should prioritise first. I explicitly believe  
that we will discover what is important, because people will choose to  
work on it. Which saves us arguing about the priority of work that hasn't  
really got underway yet.

> That sounds like a good idea in principle, but if there are some
> interdependencies between issues, this could get messy.

Sure. I don't think that's a big issue, it just means that for some cases  
we will have to do some complex work before we're likely to achieve much.

In changing W3C's process we need to get agreement from the W3C staff and  
membership (it belongs to them). Without clear proposals, explained well  
to AC representatives and the lawyers who will be watching over some of  
their shoulders, it becomes less likely that we get such agreement.


> 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)

Doing this for issues in tracker seems likely to give us a workable method  
of handling issues that we can follow and work with.



Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk       Try Opera:

Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 19:10:34 UTC