Anne,
It is true that W3C has quite a different process from WHATWG, built
structurally on consensus and the AC. Nonetheless, for a number of
items we are trying to change [1]. I would value your input on at least
two of these.
Jeff
On 11/24/2014 11:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I can't spreak for the WHATWG. Personally I dislike the W3C Process,
its licensing practices, its many private activities,
Not everything in W3C is public, but much of it is. I'm curious what
specifics you are referring to.
its forking
practices, its stale publication process
1. Based on input from the WHATWG, I raised ISSUE-141 in the Process CG
to make W3C documents living documents by folding in changes (in the
form of errata) into W3C REC documents. Steve's proposal to do that can
be found in [2].
that has caused countless
hours of productivity loss due to developers looking at the wrong
specification, its resistance to change,
2. Process 2014 is a major change to our process. It gives Working
Groups consider latitude on how to get their work done, as long as they
come to CR with wide review, addressing of issues, etc. I believe this
change actually facilitates Sam's proposal.
its management deferral to
surveys, the AC, and task forces when it comes to addressing hard
questions, and having to subscribe to two dozen mailing lists to
follow what is happening. Not sure this is exhaustive, there's other
things to do.
[1]
http://www.w3.org/blog/2014/10/decision-by-consensus-or-by-informed-editor-which-is-better/
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0121.html
