Results from TPAC 2011 session on “Revisiting how W3C creates standards”
At TPAC 2011 a session was held on potential problems and solutions regarding the W3C process.
There was much participation and active discussion.
Due to the number of points brought out it was decided to keep the session to brainstorming, record the points made and delegate dealing with the points to another opportunity.
That opportunity is this community group.
Following is a partial repost, for the sake of having the information visually available, of the summary at
Results of the TPAC session
- specs are too large
- the process is too long and too complex
- process documents do not match the development model we use
- process itself is fairly old fashioned as evidenced by ad hoc spec development elsewhere
- stakeholders need stability
- there is tension and conflict between needed stability and a dynamic environment
- ideas that the group might have might not fit the charter, but amending the charter takes too long
- finding intersted parties to work on a given problem
- getting input from necessary but uninterested parties
- in the charter the deliverables are fixed, but not the true goals
- a large scope may inhibit participation due to IPR concerns
- the draft in TR space is continuously out dated
- within a spec it is not possible to distinguish between different types of changes
- suitable stability points are not clearly identifyable. Need to be metrics based (see also CSS WG)
- many reviews happen only at LC and not before
- LC often is far too late in the process
- LC often is not truly the last call
- LC is in general overloaded with communication efforts, actual comments, prop. edited CR
- LC contains intense and lengthy communication with other groups
- CR phase is like a 2nd review phase, breaking the intent of LC
- a single, large document should not be the only thing we publish
- patent protection kicks in only after REC status has been achieved
- LC is an IPR milestone that takes long to pass
- In order to address these issues the suggestion was made to form a community group that can find solutions for the individual points
- create small, clean, orthogonal specs