- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:21:50 -0500
- To: "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, www-archive@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org
Hi James, > It's worth noting that policies and procedures have a downside too; > they can slow down a process by creating unnecessary bureaucracy, make > organizations less able to respond to changing circumstances, and > often allow so-minded individuals to easily game a system by > subverting the formal process. All of that would need to be taken into consideration. The more streamlined the procedure is the better. For example is Bugzilla needed or does it add to the bureaucracy? Maybe it would help I don't know. But serious thought should go into the procedure before adding more steps. > This isn't to say that I think that having a better documented process > is necessarily a bad idea ... For example you have asked for a formal > process for people to get their ideas into the spec. However you have > not mentioned the rather critical issue of how to keep stuff out of > the spec... A good policy, procedure, and flow charting could possibly accomplish both. It could give a clear-thumbs up or a thumbs-down or even other outcomes. Depends on how they are written. >> But most of all, a policy and procedures would help show that the W3C >> means to be above-board, fair, and accountable and not arbitrary, >> inconsistent, unjust, partial, disenfranchising, or discriminating. > I guess that would depend on what any process was, right? Exactly. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Saturday, 7 June 2008 20:29:03 UTC