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

RE : RE : Open and Transparent W3C Community Group Proposed

From: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:58:08 +0000
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, 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>
Message-ID: <540E99C53248CE468F6F7702588ABA2AC72FF83C@A1GTOEMBXV002.gto.a3c.atos.net>

I got your points, and support part of them. My mail was more a tentative to understand why people were getting nervous and why I believed the conversation was conducted with the wrong tones and arguments. I should not have tried that path if you did not get it.

To be clear, my position is that I am ok with the existence of that CG (and I have no problem with the name, by the way).


De : Robin Berjon [robin@w3.org]
Date d'envoi : vendredi 8 août 2014 16:36
À : GALINDO Virginie; David Singer; Sylvain Galineau; jicheu@yahoo.fr; Karl Dubost; Revising W3C Process Community Group; W3C Members; Arthur Barstow
Objet : Re: RE : Open and Transparent W3C Community Group Proposed

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
 This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.
Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 14:59:23 UTC

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