W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Seeking feedback from AB nominees on a few items

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:24:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqV-Lg9RHiz26AUxFUwRbBKjv8h-2RzAKYEEqe8Pd=wqYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Michael Champion <mcham@microsoft.com>, Don Deutsch <donald.deutsch@oracle.com>, Yosuke Funahashi <yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp>, GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, Ora Lassila <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com>, Soohong Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>, Roberto Scano <r.scano@webprofession.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
1. I agree completely that all AB discussions should be public.  I would
caveat that with a stipulation that I do still believe in the value of
face-to-face meetings, though these are knowingly limiting (due to
time/travel/funding constraints) - but of course minuting of that should be
public, and phone/IRC participation should be possible, as should any other
remote participation we can set up.

2.  I'm not sure I understand the value of this, precisely.  If what is
desired is total self-selection, then I'd recommend simply setting up an
open mailing list and IRC channel named "process" and encourage people to
join; but at that point, I don't think you really have a "board" in the
common sense.  Those elected to the board are expected to represent, in
some way, those who vote for their election; I strongly favor (see #1) that
the board's discussions be in public, and encourage public participation,
even, but in the end, I think the role of the board is to collate that
participation into advice to the Team and changes to the Process document.

It's quite possible that the board would, at some point, recommend that it
be itself abolished, and replaced with that model; I don't think we're
there yet.

-Chris


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile <
chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:02:41 +0400, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
> wrote:
>
>  Hello AB Nominees,
>>
>> I am interested in your comments on two items ...
>>
>> 1. One of the things that is somewhat unique about AB members is they are
>> expected to "use their best judgment to find the best solutions for the
>> Web, not just for any particular network, technology, vendor, or user" [1].
>> Since this implies AB members represent "everyone" including non W3C
>> Members, it seems somewhere between ignorant/remiss to at least a tad bit
>> hubristic, for the AB to continue to conduct its process related
>> discussions in a non-Public forum. To address this issue, I propose:
>>
>> * All AB discussions related to W3C processes (e.g. the W3C Process
>> Document) are to be conducted in a Public forum (e.g. public-w3process
>> list).
>>
>
> I think that's a great idea. I created this group in the first place to
> enable discussion of the process in the clear sunlight, with the
> participation not only of those who get to decide, but of those who have a
> vested interest and may have a valuable contribution to make.
>
> I note that in a few edge cases, discussion will not be free and frank in
> public. For those instances I prefer that the discussion is held in member
> space if that is good enough, or as a very alst resort archived in team
> space. If people resort to unarchived private threads for important
> discussions we missed the point of openness and transparency. But if people
> just default to something other than public, we are losing too.
>
> (Having gone through the exercise a few times of trying to get permission
> to make a thread public after the fact, I usually prefer to err on the side
> of being public as a default - it saves a lot of effort...)
>
>
>  2. A few years ago [2] and again this week [3], some members of the
>> Advisory Committee discussed a proposal to change the AB to be
>> "self-selecting" i.e. to eliminate the voting. Unfortunately, those threads
>> are Member-confidential so if you can't read them, I can at least highlight
>> my comments on those threads (if you'd like me to do so).
>>
>
> I think many aspects of what the AB does don't need to be confidential. I
> seriously want to see the AB push more of its discussion wider, whether
> member or public, much sooner. I think in most cases it isn't a win to have
> the AB try to reach consensus without actually asking the membership - and
> in many cases (such as a lot of process considerations) public input would
> be helpful *before* the AB tried to decide.
>
> But there is some level at which it seems W3C believes the votes of
> members matter, and pay attention to the people who were voted into the AB.
> If the AB becomes a hunting ground for "trolls" I expect the W3C management
> will simply stop trusting it as a forum for discussing things that are both
> important and somewhat sensitive, and will instead talk to a small handful
> of trusted confidants. Whether that is "each other", 3 or 4 companies from
> a particular industry segment, a few people who are handy in terms of
> geography language and time zone, or some similar grouping, we (the members
> and the global stakeholders beyond those members) will have lost an
> important voice for telling management what they might need to hear.
>
> If the membership think there is no point in electing an AB I would
> encourage them to take up your proposal until it gets a consensus. I am
> confident that an AC meeting that forcefully makes such a point will get
> their message across to W3C and the change can be made.
>
> Equally, if the W3C Team doesn't pay much attention to what the AB says, I
> would encourage the AC to consider either reminding them that the AB are
> representatives of the AC or reminding the AB that they need to do an
> obviously better job - or both. I note that AB minutes are made available
> to the entire membership, in part to help them understand questions like
> this better. (And that in large part due to the efforts of one Arthur
> Barstow...)
>
> I personally think there is a role for an AB, although more transparency
> is one of the ingredients that would help it perform that role much better
> - in part by allowing it to focus better.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
>
>  I would appreciate if the AB nominees would please share their thoughts
>> on these two items.
>>
>> -Thanks, ArtB
>>
>> [1] <http://www.w3.org/2002/ab/>
>> [2] <https://lists.w3.org/**Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/**
>> 2009AprJun/0146.html<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2009AprJun/0146.html>
>> >
>> [3] <https://lists.w3.org/**Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/**
>> 2013AprJun/0158.html<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2013AprJun/0158.html>
>> >
>>
>>
>
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
>       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 23:24:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:08 UTC