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 21:09:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+je-yMGEYmcjqSHOrz=WD955uuNKZcohHeQ_av0Q4J=kJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
On Jun 4, 2014 8:22 PM, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <
Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael - what about survey bit... Comments?
>
> > > Can we send out a questionare and maybe even actively ask people a
few questions about their participation
>
>
>
> It would be great to have good data, but I’m skeptical that people who
don’t respond to W3C ballots will answer survey questions as to why they
don’t, and those who do answer are not representative almost by definition
given the turnout rate. If the team did a real sample survey of AC members
AND try hard to get an answer out of, that could be interesting but the
cost would be non-trivial to do a good job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll has a summary of the challenges –
representative sampling difficulty, non-response biases, question wording
biases, etc.
>
Perfectly accurate data would be perfect, no data leads to endless
speculation and it sucks.  There are many shades between.  I would posit
that you must agree with this sentiment on some level as we know the data
you link to isn't perfect either.  Active participation and belonging to a
group aren't remotely the same thing and how the data is collected double
counts some cases and doesn't count others: individuals can have multiple
accounts and be counted multiply or not at all based on which account is
used and which agreement - cgs are counted for member accounts but not non
member accounts.  Still, it's data and not fatally flawed - i accept it as
supporting your basic argument without noodling over it...it gets us
somewhere at least.

Now, specifically how hard it is worth w3c struggling to collect this
information is a debatable cost/benefit question.  I will just say that I'm
reasonably sure the correct the optimal answer isn't "none".  I'm just me
and I'm willing to bet i can chase down a decent sample worth discussing
with minimal help/support.

Finally, i think that the answer to your question about "is it a problem" -
The silent majority isn't a problem if they are consciously making that
decision to be only tangentially or economically involved and the folks who
should have a voice do.  I offer that we simply don't have data to
consider, we should make some efforts beyond speculation even if it id only
to sanity check the status quo.

>
> So I’d ask a meta-question: is the Silent Majority issue a real problem
for W3C worth investing in?  From a quick look at
https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/orgs about 1/4 of W3C members don’t
participate any ANY groups besides the AC.  That’s way down from the last
time I looked a few years ago when about half the entries in that table
indicated “1 participant in 1 group”.  (That might be a statistical
question for the team: are non-participants in WGs more likely to be
non-voters?)  I’m not  sure it’s a problem if lots of people out there
decide to donate to W3C without getting involved in the work or the
politics.  Lurkers numerically predominate over active participants in
almost every community.  As an incurable non-lurker I’m interested in why,
but not sure there is a pragmatic need for an answer.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Brian Kardell [mailto:bkardell@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 4:55 PM
> To: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
> Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Disclosure and information proposal
>
>
>
>
> 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 Thursday, 5 June 2014 01:09:50 UTC

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