- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 09:17:53 -0400
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 9/8/2014 9:03 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 9/8/14 8:47 AM, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
>> Do you have some pointers to share with us, reflecting what you are
>> mentioning ?
>
> AsFarAsIConcerned, all of the discussion should be made Public. I've
> made a request to do so.
The big problem here is not public v private. The big problem is that
Art's comments are inaccurate.
>
>> I am not sure it would be appropriate to blacklist any organism for
>> being referenced.
>
> But having clarity (even if some of us don't like the data) is better
> than having a policy that appears to be open ended but in practice is
> not.
>
>> I believe that this analysis of stability and public qualities should
>> be made each time we want to reference a given specification.
>
> Yes, I certainly agree and a sticking point is who actually gets to
> make the decision. It seems to me the priorities should be the group
> and implementers (i.e. the actors that actually expend resources and
> take the real risk) > Director.
>
>
>> Note : provided the hard discussions currently happening between W3C
>> and WhatWG on this mailing list, this is exactly the kind of issue
>> that will not help to calm things #justsaying.
>
> Sorry, but I don't follow you. Are you suggesting it's somehow
> "{best,better}" to say nothing?
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
>
Received on Monday, 8 September 2014 13:18:07 UTC