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

Re: Towards consistent and transparent evaluation of new WG proposals

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:01:42 -0400
Message-ID: <535989C6.2080906@gmail.com>
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 4/24/14 3:26 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
> I don't see a whole lot of value in baking this into the Process document, if that is the proposal.

Oh, heavens no! The last thing the Consortium needs is more process! 
[It's actually somewhat amusing the AB thought it was important enough 
for the PD to include the one related "make sure you tell the AC about 
WIP to start a new WG" requirement since it would be pretty remiss of 
the Team to not do so, right ;)]

My expectation is that as CGs continue to progress and the frequency of 
Qs like "ok, so how we do we go about getting a WG started for our 
spec(s)?" increase, that it would be useful to have some guidelines and 
such to help people assemble a proposal that address the frequently 
raised questions we encounter by these types of proposals (especially 
since AFAIK there weren't supposed to be any Team resource exclusively 
dedicated to running/admin'ing the CG process).

Perhaps if answers to the Qs and Considerations I documented were 
included in the proposal by Wayne et al., the discussion on w3c-ac-forum 
would have been a bit more productive than mostly just a bunch of "No!" 
type responses.

Received on Thursday, 24 April 2014 22:02:11 UTC

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