W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > January 2003

Re: XHTML 2.0 and Semantics

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:38:25 -0700 (MST)
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
cc: www-qa@w3.org, <public-evangelist@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0301160924030.52097-100000@measurement-factory.com>

On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Al Gilman wrote:

> What we need to formalize is the notion of the "opt-in panel"
> comprising those who took the trouble to contribute comments.
> There are multiple points, minor review phases, where the people who
> should have a voice are those who took the trouble to exercise the
> invitation to voice comments in a closely related earlier phase.
> This could be reflected in access rights, tracking notifications,
> etc.  The notices or digests of activity should come automatically
> out of the Bugzilla installation [issue-tracking engine] and be
> controlled by individual preferences as to immediate notification on
> individual event vs. weekly or whatever periodic updates.  The user
> can also profile what issues they wish to track.  But they have to
> take the time to get on the reporting-administration site and edit
> the profile.

I agree, though I would not call it a "panel" since W3C, by design,
does not operate on the basis of consensus with public; W3C operates
on the basis of consensus within W3C (AFAIK). Public participants have
the right to submit comments and should have the right to see those
comments addressed. They should not, however, have formal "votes" when
the decision is being made. Moreover, W3C does not have to make it
easy for the public to _group_ their voices;  WG-individual contacts
should be sufficient. This is the key difference between IETF (a free
opt-in public panel) and W3C (a for-fee opt-in semi-private panel).

Bugzilla is a good interface for the WG-individual communication, and
will make WG accountability relatively simple. However, just
installing Bugzilla would make little difference -- there needs to be
a formal requirement for WGs to address/close pending reports before
each major milestone. I do not know if W3C is willing to assume such
an obligation.

Alex.

-- 
                            | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
                            | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 11:38:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 July 2011 00:13:21 GMT