- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 09:03:02 -0400
- To: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 9/8/14 8:47 AM, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
> Do you have some pointers to share with us, reflecting what you are mentioning ?
AsFarAsIConcerned, all of the discussion should be made Public. I've
made a request to do so.
> I am not sure it would be appropriate to blacklist any organism for being referenced.
But having clarity (even if some of us don't like the data) is better
than having a policy that appears to be open ended but in practice is not.
> I believe that this analysis of stability and public qualities should be made each time we want to reference a given specification.
Yes, I certainly agree and a sticking point is who actually gets to make
the decision. It seems to me the priorities should be the group and
implementers (i.e. the actors that actually expend resources and take
the real risk) > Director.
> Note : provided the hard discussions currently happening between W3C and WhatWG on this mailing list, this is exactly the kind of issue that will not help to calm things #justsaying.
Sorry, but I don't follow you. Are you suggesting it's somehow
"{best,better}" to say nothing?
-Thanks, AB
Received on Monday, 8 September 2014 13:03:34 UTC