Community and Business Groups

w3c / process

W3C Process Document

https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/

192 stars 130 forks source link

Community and Business Groups #326

Open mnot opened 5 years ago

mnot commented 5 years ago

I'm aware of #17, but with director-free-tinted glasses on, it raises some interesting questions:

Can the Team establish parallel Processes (which is what CGs and BGs amount to) that aren't subject to the same level of oversight by the community as the Process? Should they?
Can such parallel Processes create deliverables that are sometimes confused with W3C deliverables (as we often see e.g., in the WICG)?

dwsinger commented 5 years ago

@mnot can you elaborate on what you see as the confusion around WICG?

chaals commented 5 years ago

@dwsinger asked

can you elaborate on what you see as the confusion around WICG?

There are many people who believe that a specification, frm a W3C community group - especially one mentioned as often as WICG - is a W3C standard, whatever the reality. (I blame IETF and the very high bar for producing an Internet Standard, meaning that a "common parlance standard" - i.e. a think that everyone uses, might be a long way from formal approval. Hence things like "living standard" which might contain random ideas, or battle-tested widely accepted work, or a mixture of both...)

This was also the case with Incubator group reports before the community group process existed. And in some cases with member notes before either of those things - the "W3C date time format" was widely quoted as a "(common parlance) standard" despite having no official status beyond W3C agreeing to give it a URL and keep it online...

chaals commented 5 years ago

@mnot as far as I know the answer is "Yes, W3C believes it has the authority to create new ways of using its resources that are not part of the Process, so long as they do not violate the Process or ancillary policies that have not been lost or forgotten".

The basis would be that what is not prohibited or constrained by the process is permitted. I think that is a reasonable approach, but perhaps we should look more carefully at what extra-process procedures can make a call on W3C resources or endorsement (as CGs and BGs do, if for no other reason than that W3C hosts them on a W3C-branded website.

jeffjaffe commented 5 years ago

I think that @mnot raises an important question. The Team would be foolish to introduce processes without member review and acceptance. I believe that CGs and BGs have been discussed numerous times with the membership. The question here is how much do we want to formalize this - which is a fair question.

dwsinger commented 4 years ago