- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:54:46 -0500
- To: "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@myopera.com>
On 2/7/12 5:51 AM, ext Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich wrote: > As an aside, > > The Advisory Board has contacted Marcos and myself, as initiators of this activity here, to contribute a list of problems with W3C Process and potential solutions. > > I, for my part, referred to this activity and that we are still in the problem finding phase and have not worked out solutions. > I would also refrain from making proposals that have not been supported by this group, as I think this is what this group is about. > > > However, it would be nice to be able to give the AB some material to work with. Hi All, Sorry for the late reply on this but having just caught up on most of the comments on the recent Living Standards thread, I wanted to step back a bit and try to get some clarification on a couple of questions that were no doubt discussed a while ago ... What exactly is in play here i.e. what are the constraints re changing the PD and PP? Is everything in those docs truly open for change or are there parts of them that are considered axiomatic and thus deemed sacred and immutable? If the later, what are they? I'd like to understand this now (at least generally) so I don't waste my time working on "solutions" or "proposals", especially if folks from the AB and/or PSIG are just going to stand up say "wait, wait - we can't do X/Y/Z because that would change A/B/C and they are immutable!". Also, an observation I have - and it may be incorrect - is that there is a considerable amount of work that is ongoing at the W3C where the overall consensus of the active participants re process is effectively "if it ain't broke don't fix it" (f.ex. Semantic Web?, WAI?, XML?). If we assume this is true, is the idea in his CG more about how to change the processes for some specific WG that may decide to opt-in to a new proces model? Or is the CG trying to create a new process model for every WG? -Cheers, TheOtherAB
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 18:55:21 UTC