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

Re: RE : Open and Transparent W3C Community Group Proposed

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 16:36:13 +0200
Message-ID: <53E4E05D.3000708@w3.org>
To: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>, "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>
Hi Virginie,

On 08/08/2014 16:11 , GALINDO Virginie wrote:
> First the condition this CG was created. Imagine that prior to
> creating it, Art would have socialized it a bit, or would have
> warned that this CG was a possible mean  to follow up on his
> willingness to support openess and transparency, calling for
> contributors and support... I am confident it would not have
> collected so much cristicism.

I don't disagree that socialising things can be good, but you can't
socialise everything to everyone. If you do, you will get
concern-trolled out of your socks and all the way back to the first cave
inside which you can crawl and lie down in misery.

You're not the first person to bring the notion of socialisation. But
how do you know it wasn't socialised, just to other people?

CGs are *meant* to be quick. Quick to get started, quick to kill.


> Second, this CG adresses together the financial, governance,
> communication and contributions aspects of W3C. AB, AC rep, W3C
> communication team, the people who had a mandate related to that
> topic : this is all about their  job (our job). Opening a CG to tell
> people how they should work, what they did wrong, with no prior
> communication can be frustrating.

I don't think that this CG is telling anyone how to do their jobs. At
least, as Team, I don't feel targeted.

If anyone has concerns with how open and transparent my work is, please 
take it to the CG!


> Third, one could suspect this CG to be just another way to propose
> things that did not get consensus (such as creating a public AB
> mailing list), and would generate waste of time for everyone, W3C
> team, AC rep, AB... But lets hope it targets more then that.

I find this remark to be uncomfortably close to implying that Art might 
just be doing it in a self-serving fashion, in order to bring back the 
items of importance to him, which I don't think is fair.

Sure enough if we start seeing posts from Craft Caféstow we might be 
suspicious, but otherwise it's billed as a venue for the public. Maybe 
people can make suggestions for things you've rejected but using 
arguments you hadn't considered? Or maybe a lot of people will bring 
them which might change your appraisal of the topic's importance?

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 14:36:31 UTC

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