- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:26:27 -0400
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Fantasai, Thanks. I was in transit so I did not have an opportunity to look at this yet or join today's call. I hope that in the call we validated the two key items that I was concerned about: (a) does this address the issue #79 use cases, and (b) do we think that we can get quick support from PSIG for the PP mods? Jeff On 6/11/2019 8:55 PM, fantasai wrote: > (Because it's 3am.) > > We were given an action to propose an alternative to the “Evergreen > Standards” proposal in https://www.w3.org/wiki/Evergreen_Standards > which redefines an entirely new standards track, which is problematic > because it forks every aspect of the *entire* process (which is > error-prone, to understate the problem), fails to maintain the aspects > of the W3C Process that functionally ensure consensus and wide review, > and overdefines other aspects, leading to inflexibility where the > current Process is more adaptable. > > Here's the initial draft: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Maintainable_Standards > > Looking forward to arguing with you all tomorrow. > > ~fantasai > >
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2019 15:26:35 UTC