Re: Open and Transparent W3C Community Group Proposed

On 07/08/2014 17:52 , David Singer wrote:
> 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.

I don't think that you intend it to be David but, candidly, this is 
complete sophistry.

If I felt that the W3C were insufficiently respectful of its Process, or 
made insufficient use of Process in general, I might well indeed call it 
"Process-Driven W3C" CG.

By your logic, any document maturity before Recommendation is not 
recommended. So, for instance, we don't recommend that you make use of 
HTML's accessibility features.

It's fairly common to name your group after what you want to improve, 
not because you intend to imply that something doesn't exist.

"Accessible SVG", "Emergency Information", "High-Performance Computing", 
"Maps For HTML", "Open Government", "Read Write Web" — the list just 
goes on and on.

> 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?

Not talking to the AC/AB before getting started is a feature of CGs...

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 11:10:49 UTC