- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:59:53 -0500
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Anne, It is true that W3C has quite a different process from WHATWG, built structurally on consensus and the AC. Nonetheless, for a number of items we are trying to change [1]. I would value your input on at least two of these. Jeff On 11/24/2014 11:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > I can't spreak for the WHATWG. Personally I dislike the W3C Process, > its licensing practices, its many private activities, Not everything in W3C is public, but much of it is. I'm curious what specifics you are referring to. > its forking > practices, its stale publication process 1. Based on input from the WHATWG, I raised ISSUE-141 in the Process CG to make W3C documents living documents by folding in changes (in the form of errata) into W3C REC documents. Steve's proposal to do that can be found in [2]. > that has caused countless > hours of productivity loss due to developers looking at the wrong > specification, its resistance to change, 2. Process 2014 is a major change to our process. It gives Working Groups consider latitude on how to get their work done, as long as they come to CR with wide review, addressing of issues, etc. I believe this change actually facilitates Sam's proposal. > its management deferral to > surveys, the AC, and task forces when it comes to addressing hard > questions, and having to subscribe to two dozen mailing lists to > follow what is happening. Not sure this is exhaustive, there's other > things to do. [1] http://www.w3.org/blog/2014/10/decision-by-consensus-or-by-informed-editor-which-is-better/ [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0121.html
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 21:00:04 UTC