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

Re: Overall structure of the W3C

From: Kai Scheppe <k.scheppe@t-online.de>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:11:00 +0200
Message-ID: <53DB67B4.4010409@t-online.de>
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Very interesting discussion.

There can only be progress through change.
However, shouldn't a discussion about potential changes to the W3C be 
based on goals?
The document Mark pointed out, 
<https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities>, has some attempts at 
this, particularly 3. and 4. of the priorities.

In a sense I am following Dan on this and would also reserve judgement 
on which changes have to be made.

I would propose the following approach:

1. Identify which partial goals W3C needs to achieve in the short, mid 
and long term (measurable and achievable goals!) in order to its mission 
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission>
2. Determine which steps would have to be taken to achieve those goals
3. Identify what in the structure or the process of W3C is hindering 
item 2 and find solutions
4. Make the changes, reach the goals
5. Reevaluate and go back to 1.

The goals need to follow the SMART 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria> paradigm.
Any proposed change would have to have a clearly identifiable 
contribution to achieving the set goals.

Beyond that I see the discussion loosing its drive due to the issues 
being diluted.

Kai


On 01.08.2014 10:31, Daniel Appelquist wrote:
>> On 1 Aug 2014, at 04:02, Nottingham, Mark <mnotting@akamai.com> 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?
>>
> I tend to agree with Mark on the above.
>
>> 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.”
>>
> I agree that it bears examination. I think the unique structure of W3C (the multi-host model) has both positives and negatives. I suggest approaching this from the perspective of fixing the negatives. Too much tinkering at one time could have unintended consequences.
>
> Dan
>
Received on Sunday, 3 August 2014 12:58:25 UTC

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