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

RE: Disclosure and information proposal

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 19:55:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jcjN+_x_cCv27ySBt_Ot=z-QPaGrd+UvFV6xVoCJY7rGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
On Jun 4, 2014 7:47 PM, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <
Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>

Whoops! Yes, obviously (i hope) i meant the later... Typo.
>
>
> > 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 be done today, but is it told to candidates?  I'm advocating it
should be normal policy, not just arcane process few are aware of.
>
>
> > 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) J
>
Fair enough, but i think it's understood that until there are no longer
elections (which maybe is valid with other reforms) that my own pandora
(and i hope others) is out of it's box, so ...

Michael - what about survey bit... Comments?

>
>
>
> 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
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 23:55:44 UTC

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