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

Re: Open and Transparent W3C Community Group Proposed

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 12:04:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jc_48VTG4-0DBf2s39-1uuS4HLhvXupTUAWUBUHmsLX5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>, W3C Members <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, Olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk>, "jicheu@yahoo.fr" <jicheu@yahoo.fr>
On Aug 7, 2014 11:49 AM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 7, 2014, at 3:19 , Olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> >
> > On 7 Aug 2014, at 07:41, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Le 7 août 2014 à 08:30, Jean-Charles (JC) Verdié <jicheu@yahoo.fr> a
écrit :
> >>> Actually, I fully share his point of view that this group's name is an
> >>> insult to the W3C, and I would even say it carries a lie by misleading
> >>> people to believe W3C is neither open nor transparent at all.
> >>
> >> Could we cool down a bit and find a better solution? :)
> >> From as far I remember, W3C has always been a place where discussions
between good will people led to good changes. I think the intent of the
group is to propose to push further the openness and transparency. There
was a time W3C had most of its WG with closed door meetings and hidden
minutes, with mailing-lists in Member only space, etc. etc. Things have
changed and they can certainly change again.
> >
> >
> > There is no question that the W3C has been working very hard to become
and remain an open and transparent organisation.
>
> That started soon after we stopped beating our wives. :-)
>
> Seriously, your sentence suggests it was not at some point in its past.
 Can we stop insulting ourselves like this?
>
> >
> > Are most people interacting with the W3C in agreement? Hopefully. Will
there always be people who believe that the W3C is an evil, closed cabal
regardless of what we do? Certainly. Are there people in between? Most
likely.
> >
> > So having a place to interact with people who think we could do
more/better does not sound like a bad idea. Unless we already have a
functional one already I can’t think of? (Process CG does not qualify,
sorry)
> >
> > As for the CG name, I fail to find it offensive: “Open and Transparent
W3C” community group sounds like a good place to discuss our ongoing
commitment to openness and transparency.
> >
> > My tuppence,
> >
> > Olivier
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
I can appreciate the sensitivity on this issue, but at the same time it
seems kind of inarguable that open-ness and transparency has increased,
which logically implies that it was less in the past.  Its not intended as
an insult, I don't begrudge anyone the past, I think people worked hard and
in good faith and with good intent, and that the entire industry and many
perspectives have evolved over time. I would begrudge efforts to grow,
adapt and do better based on current situations rather than the past and in
some cases this is certainly debatable, thus, I feel the group is
appropriately named and not intended to insult anyone... Just my
perspective, of course, but hopefully I've explained it a little.
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 16:05:04 UTC

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