On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:02:43 +0200, EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Chaals, all,
Hi,
It was not intended to be an official W3C meeting, but just an informal
discussion to feed the official standardization track, which AFAIK this
mailing list is part of.
Right. But the boundaries are difficult to define. If you invite more
people than the editors to a discussion that isn't archived on this list
(or a specific list for your spec, where relevant), then I strongly
recommend that you make it "a formal WG meeting".
As you know, that doesn't actually have to be very formal. Basically, you
have to tell people where and when it is happening, and give enough notice
to meet the process requirements. Ideally there would be minutes, or at
least a rationale along with any proposals.
As you may note my previous email was not imposing any agreement to the
group but just proposing a set of changes and asking from feedback from
other parties.
Understood - and that is a general part of how the group works: The
requirement that decisions are made asynchronously, rather than imposed
from some meeting where people may not be able to attend.
But sorry if my email has led to any misunderstanding.
No, it hasn't led to a misunderstanding, it shows that we (the chairs, but
probably everyone) seem to have some misunderstanding in the group about
meetings. As you know, this group tries to avoid having meetings unless
they are for some purpose - but when we do have a purpose, we should be
clear and hold a real meeting. And we do work to make that as simple and
efficient as possible.
Again, I am pleased that you are making progress. That's the real reason
we are here. But part of the chairs' job is to make sure we follow the
"fairness" procedures of W3C. Another part of our job is to make that as
simple as possible for everyone so it becomes the easiest and obvious way
to do things.
cheers
Chaals
Regards,
Eduardo.
On 29 abr 2014 at 15:42:40, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
Hi Eduardo, all,
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:00:15 +0200, EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi all,
Last week the Push API editors (AT&T, Telefónica) and other interested
parties (Mozilla, Google) met to progress this specification.
Just a gentle reminder that if you are having a meeting there needs to
be
an announcement of it. I don't want to stop people doing work -
obviously,
we encourage that happening and applaud members who take initiative to
get
things done.
But there is a process requirement, that you and your employer agreed to
when joining the group. It isn't just a quid pro quo for the rest of us
agreeing to go through a PAG if necessary. It is also based on an
important legal requirement that standards be developed according to a
fair process, to avoid being construed as engaging in anti-competitive
or
cartel behaviour.
And of course it is good manners.
As a quick reminder, the general notice times required are 1 week for a
"distributed" telephone meeting (unless it is a regularly scheduled
meeting) and 8 weeks for a physical meeting.
If you want to organise a meeting for a particular topic the chairs and
staff contacts will be very happy to help, both to make sure we meet the
process requirements and with any necessary logistics. The notice period
is the only one likely to have any real impact, and there is a way to
approve shorter notice if it is really necessary.
But I would ask people who want to organise a get-together that they
provide the notice required by the Process, to ensure that "interested
parties" in the working group have a fair opportunity to attend.
cheers
Chaals
________________________________
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and
receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
[email protected] Find more at http://yandex.com
