Re: " W3C Culture" CG? RE: Problems I'd like to see addressed in Process 2016

On 4/24/15 2:01 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
> .  I don’t think what I have in mind is a CG to 
> advise the staff on how to update the Guide.  I was thinking more like 
> a CG to crowdsource a "Guide for a Revitalized W3C.   It might:
> -  Critically review the  written (in the Guide and Process Document) 
> and unwritten W3C policies and cultural norms to identify those that 
> really work in practice and those that haven’t aged well or don’t 
> align with modern industry and OSS practice.
> - Give open minded consideration to common critiques of W3C culture, 
> e.g. our regrettable tendency to “bikeshed all things” 
> <>

Given W3Process CG still uses a lot of old skool practices the 
consortium should presumably discourage (f.ex. still using Hg rather 
than Github, schedule-driven releases, synchronous decision making, 
weekly calls, etc.), it seems like a more `progressive` group should be 
used or a new one created.

FWIW, I think the above is in scope for the OpenAndTransparent CG ;-). 
However, it also seems like all that is needed to bootstrap the above is 
to create a new project under (such as 
{How-To,Guide,GuidelinesAndBPs, ...}) and then announce the project and 
solicit PRs. It's not clear any formal `group` is actually needed.

> - Build a living document advising how to build royalty-free, truly 
> interoperable specifications with broad consensus in an efficient way. 
>  The document should  clearly distinguishes what is proven best 
> practice and what are promising ideas worth trying.

This seems like an objective that could be addressed by the using-github 
project [1] (for example see the issue/discussion at [2]). It also seems 
like the requirements for a document could be relevant to the 
modern-tooling project [3].



Received on Friday, 24 April 2015 19:24:33 UTC