- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 11:36:40 -0500
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> On 4/4/14 4:20 AM, ext GALINDO Virginie wrote:
>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Dashboard
>
> FYI, I added a new section re Priorities because ...
>
>
> On 4/3/14 1:31 PM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote:
>
> | [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Headlights2013/SiteRedesign/Proposal
>
>
>
> That's a lot of details and a bit of a `boil the ocean` approach. (And I presume that since we are having this discussion no active resources are being applied to implement that proposal.)
>
> A high priority Use Case for me (as AC rep and Chair) is to have a single doc/service that provides a link to all Working Groups' {roadmap,dashboard,PubStatus,<what_ever_groups_call_it>} if they have one.
We have this page that shows which groups are publishing specs (and spec status):
http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-groups-all
Ian
> As I said back in 2012 [1], a low-hanging-fruit solution would be to simply include such links to a canonical list of Working Groups such as [2], although adding the group's dashboard links to [3] would be better than what we have now which is nothing.
>
> -AB
>
> [1] <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2012OctDec/0154.html>
> [2] <http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/>
> [3] <https://www.w3.org/Member/Mail/>
>
>
>
--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Friday, 4 April 2014 16:36:47 UTC