Re: Learning from the ASF (was: What is Process Good For?)

> On Dec 16, 2014, at 12:15 , Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I think this would be a good topic for the Process CG to consider in depth.
> - Should CG specs that get to Final Specification get published on the /TR page?  

There should be some sort of inventory of ‘what is available from the W3C?” that includes Recs, CG FSs, Useful Notes, and so on

> If so, is that just a Pubrules change or a Process Document Change? Should there be some minimum participation, FSA signer, longevity, etc. threshold?

Yes, I think that consensus to mention is assumed for Rec status documents but needs to be asked for for other documents.

The Nuts Community Group would like to have “Macadamia or Academia: Considerations for Allergy Considerations sections” on the publications page. If no objection is heard in 30 days…





> - Should we tweak the Process Document to make it possible for a WG to adopt a CG Final Spec as a First Public Working Draft or even a Candidate Recommendation, subject only to the Call for Exclusions that a FPWD triggers?

that’s being done now.  does anything forbid it?

> - How else could we smooth the on-ramp between successful CGs and WGs, without undermining W3C's value proposition or lowering the perceived quality of what's published with W3C's imprimatur?

I personally think it enhances the value proposition to have incubation in CGs possible, even encouraged.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2014 20:35:08 UTC