- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 01:20:33 +0200
- To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, public-webizen@w3.org, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>
On Mon, 12 May 2014 22:35:46 +0200, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > On 5/11/2014 7:31 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: >> On Sun, 11 May 2014 03:50:13 +0200, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: >>> On 5/10/2014 12:54 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote: >>>> - Long-term benefits >>>> - Create user groups. How would this be different from CGs? >>> >>> This would focus on users of the technology. >> >> How is that different from CGs? Or IGs and BGs? > > Hmm, I guess one could create a CG that focuses on a user perspective, > but I'm not sure I've seen that focus. I believe there are BGs where people are focused on users. There is a voting CG that is apparently focused on the users (i.e. voters), and to a large extent I think that is the case for the Process CG. It is certainly thecase for a large number of the participants in the HTML email CG. But given the trivial requirements for creating one, perhaps the reason for not doing so is that there aren't that many people excited about doing so. Or that they don't know how. It isn't that we don't have a nice easy way to do it. I don't think creating yet another class of group helps us, as a general principle. There are specific costs for W3C members in the CG experiment and I don't think we have done a very good job yet of embedding that withing W3C (although it has had a success as a stand-alone project). I don't see any benefit in providing different groups for Webizens, whereas I do see some value in noting that CG members are webizens (or for that matter, W3C members). cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 12 May 2014 23:21:08 UTC