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

Re: Open and Transparent W3C Community Group Proposed

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 17:04:07 -0700
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: <7BA31EF6-18BF-4D86-BC21-439376CBCF5D@apple.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>

On Aug 7, 2014, at 16:53 , Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote:

> 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) Verdié <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 can’t connect this, so that means I can’t work out (I think) what you think the definition of ‘open’ 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

I asked for it to be renamed, to have a name that more accurately reflected its purpose.  Who asked for it to be shut down? Since much of the rest of the response is predicated on the assumption that the intent is avoid criticism, rather than avoid misunderstanding and false implications, I think we are still apart.

> 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?

I have no problem with suggestions that we improve.  One can always improve.

> 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?

That would be better, yes.  Or even Improved opennness and transparency.

Mind you, I’d prefer we work grounded in real problems.  Can someone point at an instance where someone or something suffered as a result of a lack of openness or transparency?  Without actual cases to ameliorate, I am fearful this could spend a lot of effort to little effect.  “I tried to find X but could not.”  “I tried to communicate Y but could not.” and so on.  Anyone have specific instances?

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 00:04:37 UTC

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