RE: W3C events classification

I think the analysis below is a good view of the topic. I would like to expand a bit on one aspect of items 1 and 3 of the conclusions (so see comments below):

Steve Zilles
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olle Olsson [mailto:olleo@sics.se]
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 8:41 AM
> To: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: W3C events classification
> 
> Interesting discussion, but it seems to touch on two/three issues:
> 1. what should be defined in the process document?
> 2. what kinds of open events should W3C be associated with in what way?
> and then also
> 3. how should W3C stakeholders be informed about events?
> 
> A tentative conclusion of the discussion is that it will be impossible to specify
> in detail in the process document what kinds of events are appropriate for
> W3C involvement, and what kinds are not.
> 
> The critical factors for judging possible W3C involvement in an event
> (whether as driving partner or by some kind of sponsorship) are:
>   * what W3C resources will be consumed (can these resources be used better
> in other ways)?
>   * what is the effects on the reputation and trust of the W3C trademark?
> 
> Hence:
> 1. keep the relevant section of the process document as simple as possible,
> stating a few priorities and some objectives. It should avoid specifying an
> ontology of meetings ( ;-) ) -- such a thing will quickly become irrelevant.
[SZ] One aspect of being a public standards defining organization (SDO) is that there are criteria that such organizations are expected to meet. Like many things these criteria are not clearly delineated anywhere, but common to many lists is the notion of "fairness". This is intended to mean equal access to the work of the organization by its members (and often by the public as well). For meetings this has at least three components: (1) members must have a way of being notified that a given meeting is occurring (see Point 3 below); (2) the notice must be given with enough advance notice that people can re-arrange their schedule to attend the meeting; and (3) some useful record of the meeting is produced for those that were unable to attend the meeting. There is another aspect the size and place of the meeting venue that may also impact the number of attendees. If the number of attendees is limited, then having a "fair" selection process has been expected. (This is what led to the use of the technical based selection mechanisms that so many have complained about.) It is the role of the Process to set standards that implement "fairness". To that effect, the Process currently has minimum notification requirements for different types of meetings. I would expect that the Process will continue to have such minimal constraints (but, they might be fine-tuned or simplified.) [Note, these minimal notification times were one of the reasons that Process was created in 1997.] I would not expect the process to require a given notification mechanism because communication technology changes sufficiently fast that the Team should be given the role of suggesting appropriate notification mechanisms. Whether the Process should say something about how meeting attendance is determined when demand exceeds supply is a relevant topic for discussion. 
> 
> 2. W3C (the Team, in a broad sense) should be entrusted to make decision on
> (morally) supporting relevant events that are organized by other parties (as
> long as te event is relevant for W3C work, and not eroding vendor
> independence). We should avoid W3C being seen as a monopolizing walled
> garden, when it comes to public arrangements. Accept the fact that the web
> world is very much about bottom-up grass-root activities.
> If you can't fight'em, join'em!
> 
> 3. calendars or feeds or whatever. For use by people in the W3C garden; or by
> people in the outside world. People have many different preferences -- no
> size fits all. Personally I want to avoid polluting my mailbox. Feeds might be
> OK. If too many items flow on a feed, then a tagging policy might be needed
> to group them in a sensible way -- i.e., a personal way! Can good examples
> from other areas be provided, so we can get an idea of possible solutions.
> Stating preferences for abstractly described approaches is often meaningless.
> It is only when we see some real-life examples that we understand the trade-
> offs.
[SZ] One other aspect of the notification mechanism is the intended audience. For meetings of an establish work effort, the normal communication channel for the effort should suffice. If outside (the effort) input is desired, then other channels are more appropriate. If the meeting is outside the scope of existing efforts, then a broader notification mechanism is need to insure that the full membership (and the public) are aware of the new topic. 

Having said that, I am aware that real work is done by relative small groups of people not large meetings. We need to enable those as well and I am less sure on how to do that in a way that is "fair" to the whole W3C audience.
> 
> /olle
> 
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Olle Olsson   olleo@sics.se   Tel: +46 8 633 15 19  Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
>          [Svenska W3C-kontoret: olleo@w3.org] SICS [Swedish Institute of
> Computer Science] Box 1263 SE - 164 29 Kista Sweden
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2014 23:56:55 UTC