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

Re: Towards consistent and transparent evaluation of new WG proposals

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:04:36 -0500
Cc: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C12D3940-4F9D-424B-9DC2-074DFB3CCEF4@w3.org>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>

On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:59 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:

> [ Bcc: w3c-ac-forum ]
> 
> A recent discussion about a proposal to create a new WG to continue work started by a CG raised some general questions about the process used to evaluate such proposals [1]. I created a document to capture some of the related questions and considerations [2].
> 
> Perhaps [something like] this can be used as the basis of a framework to create more consistent and transparent criteria when evaluation new WG proposals?

I think this is also relevant information and a set of questions (this applies to each WG, not just groups of WGs):

5.6 Activity Proposals
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/activities.html#BPCreation

Ian

> 
> Comments on this doc are welcome but please send them to public-w3process and as always, please do feel free to directly update this document.
> ​​
> -Thanks, AB
> 
> [1] <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2014AprJun/0015.html>
> [2] <https://www.w3.org/wiki/AdvisoryCommittee/NewWGProposals>
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2014 14:04:37 UTC

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