All of this is sensible and good and I hope it happens as soon as possible.
The only group that should be allowed to have a hidden tracker/list is, perhaps, the AB, and I question even that sometimes. Member-only space is a bug. In fact, new groups (to my mind) shouldn't be given the option of having member-only space systems except by application and an explicit exemption. Thanks for proposing this, Steve. Regards On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Steve Faulkner <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I know some of these have been raised and are 'in process', but the > process appears to be moving slowly. > > The following are some suggestions that I think would provide easier > collaboration between the PF and other working groups and contributors at > the W3C. Note: these suggestions are personal and are not intended to > represent the views of my employer > > Public-PF mailing list [1]: allow non PF members to post to the list. We > have had situations in the past where members of the TAG (and other working > groups) have been unable to respond to technical discussion occuring on the > public PF list. This has lead to loss of technical input on important > accessibility related developments. > > PF issue tracker [2]: Allow anyone to read the issue tracker if the work > of the group occurs in public space there is no need to have the issue > tracker in member only space. Anybody that is not a member of the PF who > wants to follow a particular issue cannot currently, this is an impedement > to collaboration and development. > > Recommend the primary method of public & inter WG comment be via bugs > filed on the various sepcifications, this makes tracking and responding to > technical issues raised easier for the people doing the technical work. > > WAI-liason list [3]: This list appears to consist primarliy of responses > to PF comments on other WG specifications (which reside in the public > space), yet this list is in member only space, it does not make sense. > > PF meeting minutes: remove the unecessary step of scrubbing the minutes > and only making them public after a preiod of time, it is in general a > waste of WG member and W3C staff time. If on the rare occasion the meetings > cotain sensitive information ask those at the meeting if they request an > opportunity to scrub prior to release. > > Move all specs produced by PF to the 2014 process [4] > > Take advantage of the new W3C publishing tools [5] that are being made > avialable, these tools can vastly reduce the amound of time spec editors > and w3c staff have to spend in producing working drafts. > > De-politicise the publication process, I have experienced on a number of > occasions, the situation where specs i work on have been held up due to > backroom wrangling even though there has been clear public member consensus > to publish. Heartbeat publications in particular should be as painless and > beurocracy free as possible, this will free up time for all involved. > > I am a PF member but largely work outside of the PF space because other > working groups allow me to get on with the technical work without undue > constraints. > > > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/ > [2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/ > [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/wai-liaison/ > [4] http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/ > [5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2015JanMar/0026.html > -- > > Regards > > SteveF > HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> >
