W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > June 2009

RE: first rough draft of 2nd charter

From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:23:14 -0400
To: "'eGov IG'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-id: <001501c9e916$395e6650$ac1b32f0$@Ambur@verizon.net>
On first glance at the draft, I'd have been inclined to say that: 


a) it generally looks pretty good, and 

b) that I am pleased to see that it outlines *measurable* objectives, but 

c) that the key will be to identify stakeholders of the performer type to
accept the lead roles for achieving each objective, and

d) I look forward to rendering it in StratML format.


However, on second glance, I agree with the thrust of Sharron's comments.  I
look forward to seeing her specific editorial suggestions and to offering
some of my own.  I also look forward to learning who is willing and able to
volunteer to serve as the lead performer for each objective in the plan.




From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Sharron Rush
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:35 AM
To: eGov IG
Subject: RE: first rough draft of 2nd charter


Hello all,

My general comments about the charter draft can be summarized in two points.
You will not be surprised to know that I strongly believe this document

1. shorter sentences
2. clear concise statement of mission and goals

The document we delivered under the first charter was opaque and very hard
to follow and/or make sense of.  I have shared the "Improving Government..."
doc far and wide and have yet to get anyone who is not part of the W3C - not
one person - to read the whole thing.   They get bogged down in jargon and
circular arguments.

If we are serious about having a global impact, we must dedicate ourselves
to modeling the kind of communications we encourage from governments.  To me
that means clarity above all. Open language - by which I mean statements
that are focused, pointed and as jargon-free as possible - is every bit as
important as open data.  In this case it really is important that we "talk
the talk" of open communications that are understandable to all citizens.
And the bonus is that we will think more clearly as a result.

Here are examples of mission statements from other groups:
- The mission of the Protocols and Formats Working Group is to increase the
support for accessibility in Web specifications.
- The mission of the HTML Working Group is to continue the evolution of HTML
(including classic HTML and XML syntaxes). 
- The mission of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is
to develop guidelines to make Web content accessible for people with
- The mission of the Semantic Web Health Care and Life Sciences Interest
Group, is to develop, advocate for, and support the use of Semantic Web
technologies for life science, translational medicine, and health care.  

Here is ours:
The mission of the eGovernment Interest Group is to explore how to improve
access to government through better use of the Web and achieve better
government transparency using open Web standards at any government level
(local, state, national and multi-national). 

There are too many subclauses, in my opinion and the entire statement is far
too qualified.  Is our ultimate goal - our mission - really only to "explore
how to improve" these things?  and do we have a dual mission...we also want
to achieve "better...transparency"?   Are we assuming that transparency is
in place and we only need to make it "better"?  My preference would be to
express these two things in one unified mission statement.  And do we not at
some point want to develop recommendations, best practices, educational
materials, shared models, etc?

The mission statement is only the most obvious place where clarity is
needed.  I know that many will think that I am harping on the same old point
about language, and I am sorry to be so tedious.  But we ignored the need
for clarity in the "Improving Gov..." document and I do not think we want to
go forward without making a strong and serious commitment to plain language
as a principle.  I also think that one of our first goals must be to rewrite
the first document with that principle in mind.

In 2007, I worked with a group of government, academic and technology
advocates to develop a ten point statement of principles known as the
"Manifesto on Usability and Accessibility for Mexican Government Websites"
Read it here http://www.uaweb.org.mx/en/documents/manifesto for an example
of how we might model our approach to promoting the use of the web as a tool
to support more truly democratic and open government processes.

Thanks for your consideration,

At 07:43 PM 6/8/2009, Novak, Kevin wrote:


As Jose mentioned, please try to take a look at the draft tomorrow (Tuesday)
and share your thoughts via email. I would like to discuss with you all on
the call Wednesday.


Kevin Novak
Vice President, Integrated Web Strategy and Technology
The American Institute of Architects
1735 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006

Voice:   202-626-7303
Cell:       202-731-0037
Twitter: @novakkevin
Fax:        202-639-7606
Email:    kevinnovak@aia.org
Website: www.aia.org <http://www.aia.org/> 


America's Favorite Architecture Tops the Shortlist for International Honor
for the Web

The American Institute of Architects is the voice of the architectural
profession and the resource for its members in service to society.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [ mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org
<mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org> ] On Behalf Of Jose M. Alonso
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 6:40 PM
To: eGov IG
Subject: first rough draft of 2nd charter


It's available at:


Thanks Kevin for drafting this one.

This is still a very rough draft and needs discussion. Please, do not  
edit in place just yet but discuss in the mailing list first.


Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>    W3C/CTIC
eGovernment Lead                  http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>  
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.58/2164 - Release Date: 06/08/09
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 16:29:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:41 UTC