- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 23:05:59 +0200
- To: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 20/06/2016 22:21, Carr, Wayne wrote: > I don't think it works to have "permanent" groups, with broad and vague charters that don't get periodic AC review. The CSS WG Charter, reviewed by 10-20 ACs only every three years with so minor comments we could skip that step, is the live proof a permanent group with a vague charter "anything related to style and formatting properties" works absolutely fine, IMHO. Seriously guys, between 2008 and 2013, the CSS WG moved from 30 to 65 active specs, you really think we amended our Charter 35 times or waited 3 years to do official spec work? Not only the CSS WG Members never complained, but they're not willing to wait and their AC-Reps never complained. The only moment when the Patent Policy is mentioned is precisely when we renew the Charter, every 3 years. Let me be even clearer: we're double-tongued saying Editor's Drafts are not official work of the Working Group when Working Group's resources are implied. We should fix that. Again, there's the theory and there's the WG practice. The practice is that WGs work around the blockers in the Process, on Membership's firm request. </Daniel>
Received on Monday, 20 June 2016 21:06:26 UTC