W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2009

Re: W3C communities and its modus operandi

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:51:30 +0000
Message-Id: <8BD67E5C-B1AF-4F54-94C2-31DDB9030B59@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, www-archive@w3.org
Not ccing Sam.

On 25 Feb 2009, at 14:17, Karl Dubost wrote:

> Le 25 févr. 2009 à 09:15, Bijan Parsia a écrit :
>> An Audit Board would be charged with investigating specific  
>> incidents and situations and producing a report and making  
>> recommendations.
>
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
> >Please send comments about this document to process-issues@w3.org

Er...how is this responsive to my reply?

You know, your first message suggested that I had said some wrong and  
unjustified, and this message suggests that I'm speaking in the wrong  
place. The Audit Board idea is an idea I've been entertaining at the  
back of my head but have not yet decided 1) whether it's, all things  
considered, a good idea (it seems to me) and 2) whether it's worth  
pursuing at the W3C. Frankly, your email has made me doubt the latter :(

But we carry on. I'll suggest it to that list.

> You could ask to have it publicly archived, but this is happening  
> very often.
> http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?keywords=Process&hdr-1- 
> name=subject&hdr-1-query=&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type- 
> index=www-archive

Have what publicly archived? What's happening very often?

BTW, I tend to think that if the W3C staff sees what might be a  
process issue or change, then they should report such, perhaps to  
that list. I don't mind doing it, but I feel very chided at the  
moment by you, and unfairly so. It makes me, personally, a bit grumpy  
about doing what you say :)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 14:54:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:34 UTC