Re: [css3-color] #rrggbbaa annotation, do we need to change the process?

First of all, let me say this clearly and explicitly, so my mistakes
don't cause any of you to waste more time:
My mail about changing the W3C process was entirely based on
misconceptions about that process. I already thanked Tab for
dispelling those misconceptions and clarifying so many things about
it. Also, I suggested to just trash away most of what I wrote on that
post.

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 4/7/10 1:55 PM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
>>
>> 3) "Are you volunteering to...?"
>> That kind of questions are, on the best case, an euphemism.
>
> I don't see why.  The last few times they've been asked on this list they
> were perfectly honest questions.
My apologies for a linguistic mistake. Where I said "are" I should
have said "sound like". I assume honesty and good intent as soon as I
see your name in the "From:" field of a message ;-). However, the
information posted on some places of the W3C site (such as the FAQ
about the "Invited Expert" stuff and the "contribute" part on the "CSS
current work" page leads to think that someone has to be a member for
anything beyond providing feedback through the mailing lists. Tab's
reply some hours ago has allowed me to understand things better; but I
still think the wording of those pages can be quite daunting for those
of us who don't really know to much about the internals of the W3C
process.

> These are the ways to attend working group meetings (and possibly have a say
> on things that come to a working group vote, rare as that is). Anyone at all
> can always write tests, submit proposed spec text, and so forth.
That's good to know. The problem is that the pages I mentioned above
don't say this (maybe they try to imply it, but in that case I don't
think it's clear enough).

> The main obstacle to this last seems to be that many people consider the
> business of writing specs and tests (much less implementing) "somebody
> else's problem", at least as far as I can see....
Which, IMO, means that something should be done to prevent so many
people thinking that way. I myself would have at least tried to
provide spec-ready text for features I suggested; but I was afraid of
such a thing not being welcome from an "outsider" and limited myself
to describe things in terms of use-cases, requirements, and logical
arguments.

> They are already allowed, even encouraged to do so.  There have been
> multiple appeals for people to submit tests, and the "are you volunteering?"
> questions are precisely asking people to.... volunteer.
I have more than once felt tempted to reply to those questions with
something like "what are the bureaucratic requirements to volunteer?";
but was afraid of sounding sarcastic or cynical despite the question
would have been entirely honest.

>> - Make more clear and simple the requirements for joining the W3C work.
>
> "Post to this mailing list, with the name of the spec you're commenting on
> in square brackets at the beginning of the subject."
Ok. Now... is something as basic and fundamental as that said anywhere
on the W3C or the CSS site? I have noticed that convention over time,
but it's the first time I see it explicitly laid out anywhere.

>> - Create a "level" of contribution [...]
Please, forget about that whole part. It's the part that was based on
too many misconceptions and prejudices. I wish I could travel back in
time and knock out the past me before I hit the "send" button. Now I'd
be enjoying a headache.

> It seems to me that you're imagining barriers to participation that don't
> actually exist (modulo possibly participation in those non-f2f meetings),
> then trying to address them.  But it'd be good to figure out whether the
> barriers are there first.
Yep, that more or less describes some of the misconceptions I
mentioned. There is no need to go over that mistake again.

However, I have just remember that this thread started with someone
else suggesting to change the W3C process; and that came after
branching from a thread with several complains about the process. So
maybe I'm not the only one with misconceptions about the process.
Which means that, maybe, the parts of the CSS site that mention how to
contribute to the process are worth reviewing. This is just my PoV,
but what your replies have told me about participation in the process
doesn't seem to match too much with what the site says.

Regards,
Eduard Pascual

Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 04:20:50 UTC