- 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>
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