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 
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.


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