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

RE: Towards consistent and transparent evaluation of new WG proposals

From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:26:41 +0000
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <63dd2e9a372e46f2ab0172b33dd82f8f@BLUPR03MB488.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I'm not persuaded that there is a problem here.  In my experience, the Team  does exactly what [2] Recommends, using essentially the criteria mentioned.  They also give the AC notice of charter work in progress, which sometimes triggers useful discussions on AC Forum.  I don't see a whole lot of value in baking this into the Process document, if that is the proposal.
________________________________________
From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 6:59 AM
To: public-w3process
Subject: Towards consistent and transparent evaluation of new WG proposals

[ 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?

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>
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2014 19:27:15 UTC

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