- From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 12:15:39 -0700
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJK2wqXZtuv2fKygyBOVAim4iJq3rEpT3QDAfRzf71DVS+Z29w@mail.gmail.com>
Also to be clear - the bulk of the process document work has taken place in the Revising W3C Process Community Group, which is open. http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/.` On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:57 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > To be clear, I think having the formal AB of a reasonable limited size — > up to about a dozen — with the ability to invite as needed, is the right > arrangement (i.e. I would not change anything). > > On Jun 8, 2014, at 8:24 , Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 6/6/14 4:32 PM, David Singer wrote: > >> I think in general, once over a minimum size, the efficacy of a > committee (and I mean committee, not working group etc.) is inversely > proportional to size. > > > > (If anyone has any _real_ data here, please provide the link(s)). > > > >> For example, for classic boards, I think once you are over about a > dozen, efficacy drops sharply. > > > > David - do you support increasing the AB size? If so, what size do you > recommend/propose? > > > >> There are many factors at play: it takes longer to listen to everyone > (and one has to, even if people repeat things already said), > > > > I don't see that having to listen to everyone is necessarily a `bad > thing`. > > > > -Thanks, AB > > > > > > David Singer > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc. > > >
Received on Monday, 9 June 2014 19:16:06 UTC