Re: Case for/data about elections

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:

> Let me suggest you take a look at the AB and the TAG selection from a
> different point of view:
>
> Who would be on your "dream team" of leaders if you could recruit them?


I don't have one.  I have big ideas, but I'm also a realist: The Web and
standards needs and will need different kinds of things at different kinds
of times.  For now, currently speaking, I'm very happy with the composition
of TAG.  I think all of the people you named are fantastic assets too but
they aren't willing to run right now.  That aside, I'm not sure that all of
them are the right team for right now and, as I said, I think that matters
(more below).


> Ideally what would you have the TAG and AB do?
The role they should or even can can play may change over time... I would
argue it has changed over time already.  Any advisory group is only worth
the respect (is that the right word?) that groups have for their advice.  I
think that currently they are more relevant and thus playing a different
role than in the past few TAGs - more like in the first few, but
potentially at a slightly different level in some ways.

Right now, I think that there is a spark of a vision that I think is the
best hope for the Web and the W3C, so I support TAG and TAG candidates who
I think really share that vision and can help fan the flames.  Through
discussion, reviews, outreach, etc - and figure out and apply it at large.
 I think that this involves the layering of APIs and consistency of
concepts across the platform, asking for help in prioritizing archeology
and low-level features and identifying the new ones that are missing so
that we can put in place a healthier way to evolve the high-level of the
Web and tighten the feedback loop that so often in the past has stymied the
leaps in progress we all want.  This involves developers and it involves
creating means for higher level experimentation outside of browser
releases, which involves JavaScript.  Because of the major advances in
ECMA, I also happen to think that it's a real benefit to have ECMA members,
contributors and experts who really appreciate the declarative and linked
value of the Web itself and who can serve simultaneously as liaisons and
help align the platform.

Of course, this is all technical - and the technical alone won't cut it.
 There are bits of the process and the way we think about things that will
cripple us in this model just as quickly.  This, in my opinion, requires a
shift in attitude and how the W3C approaches things - but the W3C *is*
membership.  So, I support AB candidates who articulate things that I think
need addressing for all of this to work out:  How do we actually involve
developers?  How do we build the lexicon from the outside?  How do we
tighten the feedback loop and create a really productive ecosystem of
interoperability which doesn't just lead to a turing tarpit and loss of the
really good aspects of the Web, yet is adaptable, safe and responsive --
AND accepted/deployed by developers.  I support people who can talk to
their peers, who I think understand process and pains more generally and
see the benefits of being increasingly open and the importance of developer
interaction/participation which has been long wanting.

If some things change, perhaps in a few years my perspective on their
role/importance will change... Perhaps it will be so open and smooth, that
'elections' as they currently are won't even matter so much... But for now,
we work from where we are - and right now, these are groups poised to help
figure things out in what I think is an important time and play a role in
helping to changing _some_ things (even attitudes) in important ways.

If you have a dream team, I encourage you to reach out and ask them if they
are willing to run - I sure do... They don't all accept and I'm not willing
to discuss who I'd 'like to nominate' simply out of respect for them.




> How could you get any of your dream team (or your second choices) to
> volunteer and commit the time?
>
>
This is part of the challenge and criticism some have of TAG or AB
historically - and I can see where they are coming from.  We take folks who
are super active in something that is important to boots on the ground and
move them into a position where what they are doing isn't as clear or
public as it could be and perhaps not even fully relevant until after their
term is up.  More generally, this is part of the problem we have in the Web
- it's mostly 'volunteer' driven in some regard for everyone.  For folks
employed by a member org, they are often allotted so much time and how they
spend that involves choices.  You can serve on AB and spend it all there -
or you can serve on a WG and spend it all there.  Very few of us have a
single interest, and if you did, you probably wouldn't have very healthy
opinions either.  Then take this down to folks like myself - developers who
just want to be involved and aren't paid for any of it.  We need folks who
can help us work through how to make this easier and better - for example -
 changes to our process can help us employ these concepts and 'bubble up'
the ideas and 'filter down' the noise...  No single election will do it -
but I feel pretty confident that 7 candidates this time will help us move
the ball down the field...So I hope that 5 of them get elected, and we'll
see where it goes from there.







> The discussion about voting and selection seems to be disconnected from
> the fundamental gap.
> From my viewpoint, the web platform is enormously over complicated,
> fragile and insecure, poorly integrated with other (non-web) Internet
> applications -- architecturally baroque and getting worse every year. And
> W3C isn't poised to lead effectively to fix this or even apply
> back-pressure.
>
> Those are the kinds of problems I'd want them to take on.
>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
>
>



-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com