- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 08:43:10 +0000
- To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "Wayne Carr" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 02/10/2014 17:51, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote: >We can make the list public, but we can't make the necessary people >subscribe to the list. > >The AB and/or the Process CG discussed this in some depth while >deliberating the 2014 process. My recollection of the consensus was that >-- consistent with the spirit of the new process philosophy -- the >Process Document doesn't describe a machine that you crank to put out >Recommendations, it describes *what*criteria a spec must pass to become a >Recommendation. *How* that happens can be optimized by specific WGs and >Chairs to work in the actual environment they live in. That's not a process then, it's a set of what some call "stage gates" with verification steps. The document should be renamed to avoid creating misleading expectations and make obvious the change in philosophy. Google "define: process" process noun 1. a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Wayne Carr [mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com] >Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2014 9:43 AM >To: Arthur Barstow; public-w3process >Cc: Nigel Megitt >Subject: Re: 2014 Process: WD -> CR difficulties > > >On 2014-10-02 04:30, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> On 10/1/14 3:21 PM, Wayne Carr wrote: >>> There could be a Call for Review public mail list. >> >> Agree [and it might even be useful if the `right` people subscribe ;-)]. >> >> In case you did not know, the [chairs] list is already used to: 1) >> make FPWD transition requests [rarely do these fail]; 2) announce LC >> publications + explicit RfC from specific group(s); 3) make CR >> transition requests. It would be helpful (vis-à-vis toward getting >> early and wide review) if all three of these (plus ProcDoc-2014 now >> effectively mandates a "RfC for pre-CRs") were announced on a Public >> list. >> >> Unfortunately, the chairs list is Member-confidential and I suspect >> subscriber membership is controlled by consortium staff (i.e. I don't >> think it is an auto-subscribe-able list by Joe Public). I would be >> delighted if everything on that list was automagically forwarded to a >> Public list. However, I suspect typical Public vs. Member >> confidentiality stop energy would prevent that :-(. > >Can W3C staff just make this list? >public-wg-call-for-review@w3.org or public-wg-rfc@w3c.org > >- posts should only be from WG Chairs and W3C Staff >- notices: > + Staff sends announcements at: transition requests, "last call" >publications - FPWD and the CRs that have substantive changes or Last >Call (under the old process), notice that work is underway on a charter > + WG Chairs send RfC on anything the WG would like feedback on or >that they would like to tell the public. e.g. want review on a >particular section, notice that a section is considered stable > >This could just be done and WGs use it as they see fit and the process >could later mandate it (if that was wanted). In the meantime, it would >be something WGs and W3C staff could use as a way of asking for reviews >or making general announcements on spec development. > >> >> (WRT `the tools will save us`, if WG charter deliverables included >> some type of "interestedGroup" property, then it seems like at least >> some notifications could be automated.) >> >> -AB >> >> [chairs] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/ >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 08:43:45 UTC