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

Re: Voting and W3C level of engagement

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 23:19:31 -0400
Message-ID: <53913343.8080105@w3.org>
To: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
CC: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "Jean-Charles (JC) Verdiť" <jicheu@yahoo.fr>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>

On 6/5/2014 3:01 AM, Carine Bournez wrote:
> Hi Karl,
>
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:57:12AM +0900, Karl Dubost wrote:
>> * In this voting 25%, how many companies had more than one participant in W3C WG? (easy to extract)
> not too difficult

I'm not comfortable answering a battery of different questions (all of 
whom might not be too difficult) because with sufficient questions we 
will lose anonymity.  I expect an AB discussion of what information 
should be released.

>
>> * In this subset of those with more than one participant, how many mails have been sent to W3C WGs activity (just as a barometer. A bit more work for extracting)
> that's pretty hard, but we could have 'how many participants are document
> editors'. That's a bigger investment than sending mails and more
> accurate particpation-wise (imagine someone who would send emails just
> to send regrets for every call... ;)
>
>
>> * In the non voting 75% of companies, how many companies had more than one participants in W3C WG. (supposedly these companies are engaged in active work, but the AC rep is not interested in voting. It could be interesting to understand why).
>> * In the range of voting companies and non voting companies, how the votes fare with regards to the number of employees. Do small companies vote less, Do big companies vote more?
>
> Not all the big companies have the same profile (user companies vs. software
> companies)
>
> Overall, I find it quite interesting that this discussion around voting
> happens now, while we have more and more candidates and more voters,
> while in the past we hardly had more candidates than seats to fill
> (and it seems to me that it was more worrying that the current situation)
>
>
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 03:19:47 UTC

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