Re: Where to discuss TR process issues? [Was: Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:50:48 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: So, rather than continuing to complain about this process on public-webapps, I would appreciate it if you would please move TR process type discussions to another Public list. I'm not asking to have a discussion about it at all; I'm asking that you stop trying to prioritise my work based on it. Hi Ian, in so far as the Web Apps group is currently chartered under the existing W3C process, and you are an editor of some specs under the terms of that charter, I find it hard to understand what us unreasonable about prioritising the work of the group (some of which you have volunteered to do) according to the existing agreements about how the group functions. For what it's worth, I am a member of the Advisory Board, and in that capacity I share some of your concerns. I, and I believe the advisory board as a whole, would appreciate you taking the time to make some proposals on process to that forum - a...@w3.org with a cc to e.g. www-archive if you want a public track. As an employee of a W3C member, you could also ask your member representative (TV Raman) to present concerns through the Advisory Committee forum. Whether you chose to do so or not, these issues are being followed in the relevant fora - but this group isn't really it. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Where to discuss TR process issues? [Was: Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
Hi Hixie, On 7/6/11 1:55 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be addressed before publishing a new LCWD? Can we please stop letting the LCWD/CR/PR process nonsense drive the prioritisation of the bug fixing process? This is getting ridiculous. I think we all realize you have issues with the W3C's TR process. I actually agree with some of your view points [at least as I understand them ;-)] and I think they should be discussed with a different set of people then WebApps. For instance, the so-called Advisory Board [AdvBrd] manages the evolution of the W3C Process Document, yet I suspect very few of them are subscribed to public-webapps. So, rather than continuing to complain about this process on public-webapps, I would appreciate it if you would please move TR process type discussions to another Public list. IJ, PLH - what Public list is appropriate for discussions about the TR process? -AB [AdvBrd] http://www.w3.org/2002/ab/
Re: Where to discuss TR process issues? [Was: Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: So, rather than continuing to complain about this process on public-webapps, I would appreciate it if you would please move TR process type discussions to another Public list. I'm not asking to have a discussion about it at all; I'm asking that you stop trying to prioritise my work based on it. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: Where to discuss TR process issues? [Was: Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1
On 6 Jul 2011, at 2:41 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi Hixie, On 7/6/11 1:55 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be addressed before publishing a new LCWD? Can we please stop letting the LCWD/CR/PR process nonsense drive the prioritisation of the bug fixing process? This is getting ridiculous. I think we all realize you have issues with the W3C's TR process. I actually agree with some of your view points [at least as I understand them ;-)] and I think they should be discussed with a different set of people then WebApps. For instance, the so-called Advisory Board [AdvBrd] manages the evolution of the W3C Process Document, yet I suspect very few of them are subscribed to public-webapps. So, rather than continuing to complain about this process on public-webapps, I would appreciate it if you would please move TR process type discussions to another Public list. IJ, PLH - what Public list is appropriate for discussions about the TR process? There is no list with a public archive. One thing to do is use process-issues and cc www-archive if you wish. Ian -AB [AdvBrd] http://www.w3.org/2002/ab/ -- Ian Jacobs (i...@w3.org)http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
