Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
> > You don't "do your work in a W3C CG" - a CG is one of the venues in which
> > work is done.
>
> The way a CG was explained was that it could be an extension of an
> existing community and that community could keep using its own
> communication channels. I don't think what you're saying is true.
>

My wording was unclear - I meant that as a specific statement about where
WHATWG work was done.  "The WHATWG does not do its work in the WHATWG CG -
that appears to be merely one of the venues in which work is done by the
WHATWG (e.g. IRC, whatwg@whatwg.org).  Those other venues are not part of
the CG (since their membership is greater, e.g.)."

You can certainly continue to use other avenues; however, that 1)
circumvents non-CG members signing a CLA, and 2) suggests one wouldn't say
"you want to participate in WHATWG work?  Go join the CG!"  Which, in fact,
the WHATWG does not say.

My point being - you can use a CG as a way to publish specs and ask for
FSAs.  (That seems of limited value to me personally.)  That appears to be
the point of the WHATWG CG.  WHATWG "work" is largely done outside that
umbrella.  Is this not the case?