Note that this is ISSUE-130 http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/130
 
cheers
 
09.10.2014, 21:02, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>:

It would be great to start harvesting from this set of threads some concrete suggestions for changing the formal W3C process and informal practices to address some of acknowledged problems.  Just to start things off:

[...]

4.       Jeff’s blog mentioned that Community Groups – which do not require broad consensus to proceed, but do not produce “standards” – are a way to develop specs more quickly. Indeed, the whole point of the blog was to muse on the right balance between strong editors (that some CGs have) driving “lazy consensus” (to adopt the Apache term) and traditional W3C “broad consensus.” Should we discuss how CGs and WGs fit together in the W3C culture and process, continue to let them evolve independently from the process doc and team’s oversight, more strongly encourage specs to be incubated in CGs before a WG is chartered to standardize them, or what?

cheers
 
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com