W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Overall structure of the W3C

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:24:31 +0200
Message-ID: <53DB4EBF.7050505@w3.org>
To: "Nottingham, Mark" <mnotting@akamai.com>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 01/08/2014 05:02 , Nottingham, Mark wrote:
> On <https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities>, the first
> bullet in "Overall structure of the W3C" is:
>> 1. Is the Consortium's current heavy weight structure that was
>> created in 1994 still needed now?
>
> and Chaals comments: "We don't use the process we had in 1995 or even
> in 2005. This question is rhetorically sound but irrelevant."
>
> I have to disagree here; this is THE question that the AB should be
> addressing. If there's a problem with how the question is phrased,
> that's easy enough to fix:
>
> 1. Is the Consortium's current structure appropriate to the tasks at
> hand and the resources available? Specifically:
> a. Is the multiple-Host model helpful to the goals of the W3C, or a
> hinderance? Are there alternatives?
> b. Is the Team's size and makeup appropriate to our current workload,
> considering our limited resources?
> c. Is the Membership model effective in furthering the goals of the
> W3C? What other options are there?
>
> As a Member, I'd especially like to understand what the multi-Host
> model brings to the table; we don't hear much about it, nor the
> activities of the "Steering Committee" (see
> <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Agreement/Appendix1-2013.html> section
> 3g), which "sets overall policy and provides strategic guidance and
> review of the Consortium's activities."

What Mark said. All of it. If nothing else the Consortium's structure 
could benefit from readability.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 08:24:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:11 UTC