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

Re: Open and Transparent W3C Community Group Proposed

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 23:53:33 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: "jicheu@yahoo.fr" <jicheu@yahoo.fr>, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>, W3C Members <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <84909A4C-D842-421E-AC2E-675441DFC3B1@adobe.com>

On Aug 7, 2014, at 2:02 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> 
> On Aug 7, 2014, at 12:27 , Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Aug 6, 2014, at 11:44 PM, Jean-Charles (JC) Verdiť <jicheu@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>> 
>>> I am all in favor of more openness (when/where it makes sense)
>>> I am all opposed to carrying misleading information.
>> 
>> I think it'd be pretty difficult to suggest we want to be more open while rejecting a new CG on the sole basis that its name *can* be interpreted as a criticism.
> 
> I canít connect this, so that means I canít work out (I think) what you think the definition of Ďopení is.  Can you explain a little more?
> 
> Open, to me, means that the group is accessible to anyone, and that people can track its work, comment if they like, and even make proposals for work etc.  I cannot see any link to the management of reasonable titles for community groups at all.
> 

Being open to criticism and feedback on what needs improvement is, I think, a major part of being open. Talking about shutting down a group on the grounds that its name *can* be interpreted as critical by - or merely seem 'unreasonable' to - some insiders strikes me as a lot of things but open is not one of them. It certainly does not send a signal that community feedback on these topics is welcome or encouraged; 'Your feedback on W3C openness and transparency is welcome as long as no one can infer from the group/mailing list name that W3C might need to do work on these areas'. Really?

At this point I feel like I'm trying to explain why a Monty Python skit is absurd over email. I'm probably going to fail so let me try a different angle: would a different name help e.g. 'Openness and Transparency at W3C'? It doesn't say or imply anything about how much of these does/doesn't exist at W3C. It just says the CG discusses these two topics. Better?
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 23:54:06 UTC

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