W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-council@w3.org > September 2012

[wbs] response to 'Survey of W3C Community and Business Groups'

From: WBS Mailer on behalf of Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 01:18:01 +0000
To: public-council@w3.org
Message-Id: <wbs-ae9362743b00af1498566774a081ed93@cgi.w3.org>
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Survey of W3C
Community and Business Groups' (public) for James Barnett.



---------------------------------
Overall Experience
----
Please rate your overall experience according to the following aspects:

 * Your overall experience with Community Groups and Business Groups.: [ 1
+ (lowest) ] 
 * Have you found the Community Groups and Business Groups documentation
adequate (FAQ, policy summaries, etc.)?: [ 3 +++ ] 

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
Community Groups should be abolished as soon as possible. Their existence
(and total lack of due process) undermines the whole purpose of a standards
organization.  I can't think of a better way for the W3C to go out of
business than to promote CGs to the detriment of real Working Groups.  




---------------------------------
Work Flow
----
Questions 4 through 9 focus on work flow.




---------------------------------
Discovery
----
Did you find it easy to discover groups of interest to you?


 * (x) Yes
 * ( ) No

If not, why? (or any other comments): 





---------------------------------
Group Type Comparison
----
If you have experience in both Working Group and Community or Business
Group, what advantages do you see for Working Groups? for Community or
Business Groups?

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
Community Groups undermine the entire foundation of the standards process
(which is acountabilty ,consensus, and rigorous process.  I see no
advantage to them whatsoever.  




---------------------------------
Decision-making
----
How is your Community or Business Group organized to make decisions? Have
you reached decisions on challenging problems? We'd love to hear your
successes or obstacles you've faced.
Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
The Community Group I have been involved in has engaged in blatant abuse
consensus-based decision making.  A single company founded the group,
appointed the chairman and the editors, and has since made it clear that
consensus is whatever they agree with.  Such blatant abuse could never take
place in a true Working Group.  When we (several companies) asked for a
co-chair to be appointed, we were told that "There wasn't any consensus"
for that move - i.e. that the company that controlled the group didn't
agree to share the power.  




---------------------------------
Ensuring Progress
----
Are you satisfied with how the Community or Business Group makes progress?
What would enable you to make better progress?

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
We would make better progress towards true consensus-based standards if
community groups were abolished.  




---------------------------------
Transition to Working Group
----
Do you expect to advance Community or Business Group deliverables to a W3C
Working Group? Please use the comment field for any information about the
transition (time frame, perceived obstacles or challenges).


 * ( ) Yes
 * (x) No
 * ( ) In discussion but not decided
 * ( ) No idea

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
A single company founded the community group, named the chairman and the
editors, and made it clear that 'consensus' was whatever they wanted.  They
have since stated that they will not join a Working Group and intended to
continue all work in the community group.  This is a blatant abuse of
standards process, and it is clear that they intend to publish their
private corporate API as a "W3C document".  The rest of the world doesn't
understand the different between a CG note and a true standards-track
document, and thus the value of the W3C imprimatur will be cheapened.  




---------------------------------
Process, Patent and Copyright Policy, Contribution Agreements
----
Do you have any suggestions for changes to the
Community Groups and Business Groups process,
Contributor Agreement, or
Final Specification Agreement that would facilitate participation?
Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 





---------------------------------
Overall User Interface
----
Please rate the usability of the following aspects:

 * The home page of your Community or Business Group: [ No opinion ] 
 * Other parts of the Community and Business Group Web site.: [ No opinion
] 

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 





---------------------------------
User Accounts
----
Please rate the usability of any of the following actions you carried out.

 * Requesting an account (if you did so just for Community Groups and
Business Groups): [ No opinion ] 
 * Updating your affiliation in your account (if you were asked to do so):
[ No opinion ] 

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 





---------------------------------
Joining a Group
----
Please, select the case that applies to you and comment on your experience
joining a group (via the click-through form).


 * ( ) I joined as a W3C Member employee, my request was processed by my
organization's Advisory Committee Representative
 * ( ) I joined as a non-W3C Member employee, after getting my
organization's patent and copyright commitment
 * (x) I joined as an individual, unaffiliated with any organization

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
It's much too easy to join a CG without any real IP commitment. (My company
is a W3C member, but I didn't need to go through our AC rep to join.)




---------------------------------
Creating a Group
----
If you created a group, rate the usability of the following aspects:

 * Clarity of the process for proposing a group: [ No opinion ] 
 * Clarity of the process by which people express support for a group: [ No
opinion ] 

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 





---------------------------------
Group Operations
----
Rate the usability of any of the following operations you have carried out.

 * Choosing a chair (via checkboxes on the participants page): [ 1 +
(lowest) ] 
 * Publishing a draft specification (available to Chairs only): [ No
opinion ] 
 * Publishing a final specification (available to Chairs only): [ No
opinion ] 
 * Making a final specification commitment (through the click-through
form): [ No opinion ] 

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
A single company created the group, chose the chair and the editors.  They
now claim the right to decide what "consensus" is - namely whatever they
want.  this is a flagrant abuse of standards process.  When several
companies asked for a co-chair to be named, the existing chair declared
that "there was no consensus" for such a move.  




---------------------------------
Suggestion Box
----
What can we do to improve the experience of participating in a Community
Group or Business Group, tools you would find useful, or changes to enable
you to work more effectively?
Feedback: 
Community Groups should be abolished as soon as possible. If the W3C is
unwilling to go that far, then at least 1) strict standards should be
imposed on the selection of chairs and the definition of consensus 2) the
AC should have the option of abolishing a group that abuses the CG process.





---------------------------------
Testimonial
----
To help W3C spread the word about Community and Business Groups, we invite
you to provide a 1-paragraph testimonial about your Community Group or
Business Group experience that you authorize us to publicize. This is
purely optional.
Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
The Speech + HTML group that I have participated in has shown a total
disrespect for consensus, previous work in the area, and progress towards a
true standard.  I heartily recommend it to people who seek to undermine the
entire standards process. 


These answers were last modified on 21 September 2012 at 01:17:28 U.T.C.
by James Barnett

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/2012CGBGsurvey/ until 2012-09-30.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 01:18:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 01:18:03 GMT