W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > June 2016

Re: Followup to "Supergroups" message to AC Forum

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>
Message-ID: <d9e752b4-1330-6968-26ae-c6024860d5e1@disruptive-innovations.com>
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.

Received on Monday, 20 June 2016 21:06:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 20 June 2016 21:06:27 UTC