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

Re: Don't disclose election results

From: Delfi Ramirez <delfin@delfiramirez.info>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 06:11:03 +0200
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8109a5e8273f46637823fc33b7219902@correoweb.delfiramirez.info>
 

Dear Jeff, dear all: 

My apologies if my assertion "to introduce
democratic procedural methods for the W3C." has lead to a misunderstood.


Far from my intention was to considero think that the current election
methods are non-democratic, but to emphatize yourdecision for a revision
and ehnancement of the election system. 

best 

On 2014-06-06 05:31,
Jeff Jaffe wrote: 

> On 6/4/2014 6:44 PM, Delfi Ramirez wrote: 
> 
>>
Dear all: 
>> 
>> I have been quietly and deeply following
yourconversation/discussion about the possibility to introduce
democratic procedural methods for the W3C.
> 
> I would be interested in
why you think the current election methods are not democratic.
> 
>
There are many ways to run an election; each has advantages and
disadvantages. Some have argued passionately on this thread for STV;
others have said that is too complicated. But in any case, I don't
understand why it would be characterized as not democratic.
> 
>> As a
public participant of this group, and not being affiliated --yet -- with
any corp that can represent a candidate, I agree completely with the
observations of Charles expressed in the last email.- 
>> 
>> There is
the need to be cautios publishing data, even if we advocate for an open
web. 
>> 
>> There is also the need for transparency and the use of
democratic methods like elections are. Even if we all belong to
different cultures or scenarios. And considering the W3C as a
consortium. I do not see this as problem, but as an advantage. 
>> 
>>
Consortiums may advocate and put in practice for themselves democratic
behaviours and protocols internally. This is good. It brings whealth and
health to the consortium and, besides, tangential value for the
companies who take part of this consortium. 
>> 
>> Being a public
member, with no other interest than to spread and advocate the goods of
web standards and apply them in fields of work within companies or in
companies, I would be pleased to see that the consortium has similar
democratic rules as a held has with its stakeholders or leveraged
shareholders. A reduced but positive election system. 
>> 
>> To vote
means to participate, and to participate means offering solutions and
work. 
>> 
>> My interests and appreciation for the work done by the
W3C, where I have been kindly invited and where I am taking part since
the year 1999, is mainly because I consider it focused on a public
common, this is the web standards, and the web. 
>> 
>> As it is said
before, to preserve the quality and excellence of the work done by
Chairsand Commitee of the W3C, the observations of Charles expressed in
the last email: 
>> 
>> - be cautious. 
>> 
>> - be transparent. 
>> 
>>
- promote and advocate for all the necessary members. 
>> 
>> - organize
internal charts 
>> 
>> - have an architecture of "presentation" which
may allow the internal infomation retrieved, to be this clear and
comprehensible. 
>> 
>> cheers 
>> 
>> On 2014-06-04 23:54, Charles
McCathie Nevile wrote: 
>> 
>>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 11:24:45 +0200,
Jean-Charles (JC) VerdiƩ 
>>> <jicheu@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>
(omnibus reply) * I acknowledge there are cultural differences which
make it tricky to publish results given it was not stated before the
election began. But this is an assumption. That'd be great if someone
neutral (within the team?) contacted each candidate in person to get
their actual feeling about it.
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure I qualify as
neutral. But I have talked to a lot of 
>>> candidates and potential
candidates over the years, and I thnk it is 
>>> pretty clear that right
now publishing the number of votes named 
>>> candidates receive would
have a chilling effect on how willing some good 
>>> candidates are to
stand.
>>> 
>>>> * I'm not sure these cultural differences still make
sense when it comes to anonymised results. If we read that candidate "A"
got 3 ballots and candidate "B" got 98, that's probably fine with
respect to the future life of candidate "JC" or "Virginie", given that
it's not so easy (out of 12 people) to identify who is A and who is
B.
>>> 
>>> Right. For the moment, I would not support releasing more
identifying 
>>> information than that.
>>> * I don't mix transparency
with trust. I trust the W3C not to tamper with the results (but I
trusted a lot of companies not to tamper with my data until some
revelations happened last year so...). but trusting the W3C does not
mean I do not want to understand what's going on. The 
>>> 
>>>> sortium
to take, detailed results would probably bring a lot of additional
valuable data. 
>>>> 
>>>> Agreed.
>>>> 
>>>> cheers
>>>> 
>>>> --
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>>
delfin@delfiramirez.info [1] 
>> http://delfiramirez.info [2]
>> skype
username: segonquart
>> twitter:@delfinramirez
>> common weblog:
http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com [3] 
>> about: Technology Lover & good
cook. 
>> place: Somewhere over Europe.

-- 

delfin@delfiramirez.info
[4] 
http://delfiramirez.info [5]
 skype username:
segonquart
twitter:@delfinramirez
common weblog:
http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com [6] 
about: Technology Lover & good
cook. 
place: Somewhere over Europe. 

Links:
------
[1]
mailto:delfin@delfiramirez.info
[2] http://delfiramirez.info/
[3]
http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com/
[4]
mailto:delfin@delfiramirez.info
[5] http://delfiramirez.info/
[6]
http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com/
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 04:11:29 UTC

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