W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking-international@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Agenda: Global considerations F2F meeting 11-12 Berlin

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:26:48 +0100
To: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
Cc: "'public-tracking-international@w3.org'" <public-tracking-international@w3.org>, "'peter@peterswire.net'" <peter@peterswire.net>, "'tlr@w3.org'" <tlr@w3.org>, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, "'lou@aboutads.info'" <lou@aboutads.info>, "'mgroman@networkadvertising.org'" <mgroman@networkadvertising.org>
Message-ID: <4103434.U7gKiCizeb@hegel.sophia.w3.org>

the way this works on our level is that we have some outreach world wide 
so that people know what we are working on. And everybody is able to 
participate under the same conditions. If you look at the list of 
participants, you'll discover people from Asia and South America. The 
outreach to Australia was already done (and of course could improve)

Consequently, I consider our formal representation to be global. The 
Task Force has been under the name of "global considerations" for quite 
a while now. It remains an internal task force label, which is not a 
program. Please do not  confound label and charter. 

So I think renaming now is not going to help much. I would rather keep 
that name and take it as a constant reminder to improve our existing 
representation from sources beyond the so called "western world".


On Sunday 24 February 2013 21:49:41 Chris Mejia wrote:
> Respectfully, this is your forum in which I participate, but I think
> it your (W3Cs) responsibility, not mine, to assemble the proper
> global representation if you are to call this a "global" initiative.
> My interest, outside that of my US constituency, is if we are to
> claim a "global standard" or "global considerations", that we truly
> consider ALL global considerations and global stake holders-- to do
> that properly, they need to be represented here properly, and I've
> yet to see them.  
> As I've stated time and again, a sense of "urgency" is not nearly good
> enough reason to rush this process to an outcome that has not
> properly vetted all views, unless of course, you label it accurately:
> "European Considerations" or "Western World Considerations." Given
> your stated personal constraints, maybe we just do that-- rename this
> group and it's initiative to properly represent it's agenda and
> representation?
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 17:27:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:40:17 UTC