[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Web Philosophy
- From: Ann Navarro <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Ronald Bourret <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 14:13:27 -0500
At 01:31 PM 3/27/01, Ronald Bourret wrote:
>Ann Navarro wrote:
> > At 12:12 PM 3/27/01, Ronald Bourret wrote:
> > >(b) have enough time to contribute at the level of a WG member,
> > >(c) have enough money to attend (flight, hotel, etc.) the WG meetings.
> > >
> > Ok, but if you don't have (b) and (c) available, how do you expect to be
> > able to participate? At what level?
>Participating on public mailing lists, reading specs and giving
>feedback, etc. are all reasonable levels of participation. These require
>time (but not the 20-50% required of a WG member) and very little money
>(except to finance that time).
The problem that arises, is that when you have a demand for fast-moving
spec processes (see alot of noise about public movement in XHTML 1.1), and
then people with only a little time to give wanting full commenting ability
on such a fast moving target. Everyone ends up being unhappy because the
drafts aren't coming quickly enough, yet those who are participating at the
lower level feel like they're being steamrolled over by a process that's
going too fast. You end up with chaos, or something that looks like the
progress that IETF gets.
Nothing's perfect, but for the amount of participation noted above, any
member of the public can do so by commenting on drafts as they are
Chief Geek, WebGeek Inc.
Now in print! XHTML By Example
What's on my mind? http://www.snorf.net/blog/