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

Re: Request for Comments: proposed priorities for the Advisory Board (2014-2015)

From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 19:01:57 +0000
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
CC: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, "public-openw3c@w3.org" <public-openw3c@w3.org>
Message-ID: <91EAD2D4-EE9E-427E-9B38-3CABB3108851@microsoft.com>
Art, I believe AC Forum is the proper venue to discuss AB priorities. We were elected by the AC to represent them in the AB, and that's who should validate our priorities.

It's great to get input from the larger group of web stakeholders, but the number of mailing lists is getting unmanageable, and threads fragmented. IMHO, focus to solve known problems is what we need most at the moment.  Clearly the wider community needs to be on board with any solutions ... But I'm concerned we are not  talking about solutions, we're talking about how many mailing lists there should be and what topics should be discussed on which lists. 

Sorry for the rant...I know that reasonable people can and do disagree, but I would appreciate more substantive discussion of how to improve web standards making beyond "it should be more open."

Mike


> On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:42 AM, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 8/4/14 2:01 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
>>> , rather than use public-w3process, I think the new public-openw3C list [2] is more appropriate.
>> I do not think that appropriate,
> 
> Would you please explain what you think is not appropriate? Surely Microsoft supports asking the AC as well as the Public for comments on the priority list, right?
> 
> My take on recent threads is that public-w3process should only be used for discussion about the Process Document. What Public list do you recommend the Public use for comments?
> 
>> and it's clear that there is no AB consensus to have such discussions in public (as opposed to a creating a member-only list).
> 
> Sorry, but I don't understand your concern/point.
> 
>> I will not be joining that CG
> 
> Sorry to hear that :-(.
> 
>> nor CC'ing that list until there is an AB consensus to use it,
> 
> OK.
> 
>> and I respectfully suggest that AB members who wish to ensure others see a message do not rely on public-openw3c.
> 
> Sorry but I don't understand the above either.
> 
> -Regards, AB
> 
> 
>> <rant> I'm a bit distressed that we are spending so much energy on philosophical meta issues such as "openness" when we have SO MANY very concrete and actionable issues on the AB's plate. </rant>
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2014 10:41 AM
>> To: public-w3process
>> Subject: Re: Request for Comments: proposed priorities for the Advisory Board (2014-2015)
>> 
>> [ Bcc: w3c-ac-forum; public-openw3c ]
>> 
>>> On 7/9/14 8:54 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>> The Advisory Board created a huge list of its potential "priorities"
>>> for 2014-2015. If you have any comments, please send them to this list
>>> by July 18 at the latest:
>>> 
>>> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities>
>>> 
>>> I am especially interested in priority ranking type data (f.ex.
>>> High/Medium/Low/No priority) as well as other important areas/topics
>>> that are missing.
>> (Sorry for the late feedback but I was OOO for the last two weeks).
>> 
>> The areas I intend to expend some level of energy are (in order as presented in version [1]):
>> 
>> * Consortium priorities; maximizing resource usage
>> 
>> * What are the most important priorities for the Web and W3C
>> 
>> * Member survey as well as a Public survey
>> 
>> * Long-term financial stability
>> 
>> * Membership fee reduction
>> 
>> * The "graveyard of TR"
>> 
>> * Broader industry collaboration on the Open Web Platform
>> 
>> * Best Practices that enable making standards consistent from a technical and strategic point of view
>> 
>> Re items related to updating Consortium processes, I consider changes/hacks to the Process Document (PD) mostly "make work" unless they are directly related to addressing the issues above. For example, only make changes that substantially reduce the amount of resources needed to support the Consortium's activities.
>> 
>> Comments on the above are of course welcome and encouraged but for Public replies, rather than use public-w3process, I think the new public-openw3C list [2] is more appropriate.
>> 
>> -AB
>> 
>> [1]
>> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2014-2015_Priorities&oldid=75220>
>> [2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openw3c/>
> 
Received on Monday, 4 August 2014 19:02:30 UTC

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