- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 22:12:14 -0600
- To: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
just one clarification: Arjun Ray wrote: [...] > Sure. The fundamental flaw of the process is its closed nature. > When I look at things from the W3C that have really worked, the > pattern I see is a WG (ok, closed by process rules) There's no W3C-wide rule that working groups must be closed. W3C process *allows* working groups to be closed, but doesn't require them to be. Each activity has its own structure. The proceedings of many of the WAI WGs are publicly readable (and writeable, I think) for example. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/ The HTML WG has been member-confidential for a long time, but nothing says it has to stay that way; charters generally last 18 months or so, and then they get renewed/updated/whatever. The HTML WG could be rechartered to have public proceedings at any time, if we thought we could get the engineers from member companies to participate under those conditions. [...] > What's bothersome is that, had you not mentioned your <alt> proposal, > the first time many of us would have seen such a thing for the first > time would have been some huge working draft or whatever dropped on > us, with some short deadline for commentary. short deadline? Eventually, we issue a last call with a finite deadline, but that's not before the spec has been out for review for quite some time. When did we release a draft with a short deadline? > Too much time gets > wasted essentially reproducing discussions. There's some truth to that. > We're lucky to have someone like you, offering information, but *by > process rules* this is an exception. I don't see how it's an exception. Which part of the process are you referring to? > That sucks. I suppose it could be better, but it's quite a challenge to actually get things to operate differently. -- Dan Connolly http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2000 23:17:03 UTC