Initial observations on "W3C the place for new standards" survey results

Hello task force people,

I've taken a look at the survey results [1] so far (74 replies as of 9  
July 2010). Here are some first observations. It's worth reading the  
actual results as well. :)

_ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/newstd2/results

=====

==============================================
Activities needing a host

* Let's review some of the activities needing a host at our next call:
   http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/newstd2/results#xq6

   I see a number of mentions of open web specs, payment specs,  
microformats.

==============================================
W3C as host for new work

* All the reasons I read for why not to start work are already in our  
list of barriers. Highlights include organizational overhead, control  
by Members, cost to partcipate.

* I detected a value proposition not yet documented by us: W3C can be  
useful sewing diverse pieces of technology together.

==============================================
Elements of W3C Offering

* Top-ranked:

   - open document license
   - rf patent policy
   - technical review by broader community
   - zero fee to participate

* Other comments about offerings in that section worth noting:

   - "These guys are not interested in W3C's organizational help (as  
much as they may need it), or marketing power."

   - "A way to offer educational material for web designer. A way to  
make the web designers up to date about the evolutions of mainstream  
standards and emerging standards."

==============================================
Under "Meetings and communications"

* Top ranked:

   - mailing lists
   - wiki

* Other than mailing lists, none of the other (nearly) synchronous  
communications elements (telecons, face-to-face meetings, video confs,  
chat systems) were ranked very high. Some people in their comments  
indicated they would pick xmpp/jabber over IRC. However other people  
indicated the value of ftf meetings (and we've heard that in other  
surveys that some communities really value the face time).

* One comment worth noting: "The fact that the list above does not  
even list "meet in a social environment, but still discuss business"  
shows, to me, another disconnect W3C may have with these people."

==============================================
Under "Additional Infrastructure" not in particular:

* Comments I found interesting:

   - "transparent idea submission/selection process (i.e. voting 
\membership system) + Continuous Integration (i.e. Hudson) +  
Dependency Management (i.e. Maven) + Source Code Management (i.e. SVN  
& Bug Tracker) + Test Frameworks for its standards (xUnit: jUnit, php- 
unit, pyunit, etc...) + senior/peer-reviewed code acceptance process +  
good collaborative community tools such as wikis/conference rooms/ 
scrum tools = successful software projects"

   - other things: "sandpit" service, opposing views on things that  
involve conformance testing, other version control systems,

===============================================
How Would You (re)Design the Incubator Activity?

* Today getting an account and signing up for a group is a multi-step  
process; make it a 1-step process.

* One XG chair said it was important for individuals (who are not  
member employees) to be able to participate.

* One person thinks we are barking up the wrong tree: "I would scrap  
the idea. W3C is too organized a setting to make it a natural fit with  
those communities--why continue to desperately try?"

* There is an interesting comment suggesting a value of W3C is to  
connect people with new ideas (let's call them "start-ups") but who  
don't have access to lawyers, etc. to parties that do.

* One person cites the need for better communication about existing  
offerings.

* Karl's proposal: Incubator activity should be super easy to start (3  
individuals even public) but could be not very visible, then the  
visibility of the incubator group will be raised by positive actions  
(to be defined, commits, reviews, etc) in terms of participation ala  
stackoverflow (meritocracy) giving more and more access to some of the  
features.

* Manu's proposal: "I should be able to fill out a form (XG Charter)  
and have an XG approved in short order. Taking a spec to REC should  
then require a certain amount of money per year (based on W3C  
resources consumed). Currently, the process of W3C approval to start  
an XG is not working - W3M and Team are far too overloaded with other  
work to hand-hold the incubator activities. Let a thousand flowers  
bloom and pick the best ones to transition to REC-track activities.  
This way, W3C can ensure that it is not passing up on important  
activities."

* Kimberly's description of a role for W3C: "I'm not very familiar  
with it, but I think the W3C needs to provide the infrastructure  
(tools) for anyone to be able to start up an effort with minimal  
process knowledge. The W3C can help to promote the activity which will  
help attract other interested parties (and allow some at large  
companies to participate, whereas with efforts outside the W3C they  
may not be able to do so). As the activity gains momentum, the W3C can  
help shape the group into a formal activity and provide mentoring to  
the chairs."

--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447

Received on Friday, 9 July 2010 23:29:42 UTC