W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2014

Re: W3C events classification

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 12:05:00 -0400
Message-ID: <533ED82C.7000905@nokia.com>
To: Olle Olsson <olleo@sics.se>, public-w3process@w3.org
Hi Olle,

On 4/3/14 11:40 AM, ext Olle Olsson wrote:
> Interesting discussion, but it seems to touch on two/three issues:
> 1. what should be defined in the process document?
> 2. what kinds of open events should W3C be associated with in what way?
> and then also
> 3. how should W3C stakeholders be informed about events?

At least three ;-). I think the above were captured a day or two ago in 
<https://www.w3.org/wiki/EventsProcess#Problem_Statement> and if not, 
please do update the wiki.

> A tentative conclusion of the discussion is that it will be impossible 
> to specify in detail in the process document what kinds of events are 
> appropriate for W3C involvement, and what kinds are not.

I don't think there is a need for [let's say excruciating] detail. 
Nevertheless this thread does underscore there is a need to fix the bugs 
in Section 9 and to add some transparency on the process and evaluation 
(criteria) and thus help reduce "surprises".

> Hence:
> 1. keep the relevant section of the process document as simple as 
> possible, stating a few priorities and some objectives. 

Agree.

> It should avoid specifying an ontology of meetings ( ;-) ) -- such a 
> thing will quickly become irrelevant.

I think there is value in identify the continuum of current event types 
and I agree the list should be open ended. This later requirement could 
be easily addressed by document the events process/policy in some type 
of `living document` (e.g. a wiki or a doc in GH that facilitates 
collaborative authorship) instead of embedding it in a process document 
the AB only updates every decade or so.

-AB
Received on Friday, 4 April 2014 16:07:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:17 UTC