- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 08:52:02 -0700
- To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Cc: Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, "jicheu@yahoo.fr" <jicheu@yahoo.fr>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>, W3C Members <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
On Aug 7, 2014, at 8:15 , Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > From: Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk> > >> As for the CG name, I fail to find it offensive: “Open and Transparent W3C” community group sounds like a good place to discuss our ongoing commitment to openness and transparency. > > This argument is very compelling to me. After all, the creation and existence of the Process CG does not mean that the W3C is not committed to process. The Process CG does not have an implication in its title that we have no process. If the CG had been called “Process-guided W3C” that would imply that it’s currently not, and I would have objected just the same. This group was created hastily, without any consultation — not even an email to the AB or AC saying “I am thinking that a new CG along the following lines would help”. Perhaps I need to suggest a CG “Teamwork and Communication CG” to encourage people to socialize ideas before they act on them? David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 15:52:51 UTC