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

RE: Disclosure and information proposal

From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 23:47:17 +0000
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <de6cc9bfa1d145639496f3f16215196f@BLUPR03MB488.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
> For a candidate, it seems like they should have access to the AB list for the duration of the campaign.
AB list or AC-forum?  I think the thinking in the (old) AB was that we should do as much as feasible in the view of the AC if not the public, so going forward there shouldn’t be much on the AB list that is not either administrivia or potentially sensitive.

> It also seems that their own numbers should be available them privately upon reques
That is the status quo, more or less. Several of us have mentioned that we had useful conversations with the team after failing to get elected to the AB that helped decide whether it was worth running again.

> It might make things more competitive and stimulate participation.
That’s where there is no consensus.  Some like the model of AB/TAG candidates competing for votes, along the lines of the electoral systems in many countries.  Others see this as an antipattern – do we really see the polarization, “gotcha” politics , and general toxicity of various countries’ political systems as a model for W3C? Shudder.  I remember thinking fondly of W3C’s quaint, inefficient consensus culture while watching http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(U.S._TV_series) ☺


From: Brian Kardell [mailto:bkardell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 4:14 PM
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: Disclosure and information proposal

Ok, spawning a new thread.  I am a pragmatist.  I think the best deal is the one you can actually reach and I see no reason to belabor an argument which, at best, has to be put to ACs anyway.

It seems that we've set something of a precedent in getting very basic figures cited.  I'd like to propose (if I may) that AB resolve to ask whether data (or maybe Jeff can just decide and it is so) can be provided with each election going forward.  It is enlightening to some and spawned some interesting new conversations and efforts to find ways to increase involvement - all good things IMO.  I would also charge that basic information like this for the last 5 years is helpful information.  I know some people were kind of taken aback by Jeff's seeming "I'm pleased" about that - but I think that such information puts it into context.  My own read of this is that participation before Jeff came was something ~ 1/3 to 1/2 of that at best.  While it still seems dismal, this is indeed something to celebrate IMO - we're going in the right direction.

It seems that at least without significant more efforts we're not going to get anything like the details that we see in examples cited (even in countries where cultures are very different, I think).  I think that the unfortunate bit about this has little to do with trust concerns and more about the fact that that information is a valuable cog in any democratic process that allows a number of things that have been discussed in various other threads.  So, let's assume we can't get that for now - is there any other way to get 'mostly there' or 'enough there' in terms of the valuable data.

For a candidate, it seems like they should have access to the AB list for the duration of the campaign.  It seems several people agreed to that.  Does anyone specifically oppose that idea?  Can we AB support or rejection of that?

It also seems that their own numbers should be available them privately upon request, several people voiced support for that.  Can we AB support or rejection of that?

Note: I think that personally it would be nice if basic data (including this) could be available to them throughout the election as well... It might make things more competitive and stimulate participation.

Can we send out a questionare and maybe even actively ask people a few questions about their participation?   I can create a google form and this could be completely anonymous data we could use to provide many of the answers we'd be scanning the data for or speculating on. Note that this can literally be done unofficially without the support of the AB by any 'reporter' - but it seems like something AB should support:  Do you vote never, sometimes, always?  If you don't vote - why? Here's some possible answers and a space for you to provide your own.  Even a few questions submitted by a statistically significant number of members would be valuable information that could be used to help AB and the W3C improve.



--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com<http://hitchjs.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 23:51:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:10 UTC