W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2015

Re: " W3C Culture" CG? RE: Problems I'd like to see addressed in Process 2016

From: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:20:05 +0200
To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, chaals@yandex-team.ru
Message-ID: <op.xxuprrensvvqwp@sith.local>
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 06:49:14 +0200, <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> + coralie@

Thanks, chaals.

I had a conflicting meeting during yesterday's w3process call and couldn't  
join when Josh pinged me, so I read up the minutes of the topic of  
crowd-sourcing the Guidebook:
   http://www.w3.org/2015/04/28-w3process-minutes.html#item04

> 24.04.2015, 21:24, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@gmail.com>:
>> On 4/24/15 2:01 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
>>>  http://w3.org/Guide .  I don’t think what I have in mind is a CG to
>>>  advise the staff on how to update the Guide.  I was thinking more like
>>>  a CG to crowdsource a "Guide for a Revitalized W3C.   It might:
>>>
>>>  -  Critically review the  written (in the Guide and Process Document)
>>>  and unwritten W3C policies and cultural norms to identify those that
>>>  really work in practice and those that haven’t aged well or don’t
>>>  align with modern industry and OSS practice.
>>>  - Give open minded consideration to common critiques of W3C culture,
>>>  e.g. our regrettable tendency to “bikeshed all things”
>>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality
>>>  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality>
>>
>> Given W3Process CG still uses a lot of old skool practices the
>> consortium should presumably discourage (f.ex. still using Hg rather
>> than Github, schedule-driven releases, synchronous decision making,
>> weekly calls, etc.), it seems like a more `progressive` group should be
>> used or a new one created.
>
> The Process CG doesn't use synchronous decision-making or  
> schedule-driven releases in general - it is only the AB Process task  
> force, who are camping within the structure, that works that way.
>
> If the contents of the Guide, or some putative replacement, are placed  
> in github - or some similar easy editing mechanism is exposed - I see no  
> reason why we couldn't just work on it here, and I'll track it to make  
> that possible.
>
> Coralie is carbon copied (Old School terminology and spelling warning)  
> here because she is the listed maintainer for the Guide, and it would be  
> worth doing something to make sure we don't just fall out of synch or  
> throw away the good stuff in there with the rest.
>
>> FWIW, I think the above is in scope for the OpenAndTransparent CG ;-).
>> However, it also seems like all that is needed to bootstrap the above is
>> to create a new project under github.com/w3c/ (such as
>> {How-To,Guide,GuidelinesAndBPs, ...}) and then announce the project and
>> solicit PRs. It's not clear any formal `group` is actually needed.
>
> Right. Although it is pretty useful to be able to explain where to send  
> comments, and know where to expect them to be sent if you might want to  
> respond…
>
> cheers

I was part of several past efforts, the most recent being "Modern Guide",  
a project stemming from TPAC2011 about... crowd-sourcing the Guidebook.
cf. https://www.w3.org/wiki/ModernGuide

The group was active between September 2012 and January 2013. The effort  
was overtaken by events and other priorities. We closed it in February  
this year at the time of the Ian-Coralie transition.

That group proposed to migrate the Guidebook to a wiki in order to make  
content easier to maintain, easier to discover, edit, and flag for review.
We made a prototype (plus a myriad other local drafts from 2013 and 2014  
that reside both on Ian's hard drive and mine but weren't an improvement  
over the prototype):
cf. https://www.w3.org/wiki/Guide

In terms of Editorial Control, we thought that 1) most pages would be  
maintainable by the community while 2) some pages needed to remain  
editable by Team only while allowing annotations or pages discussions  
(Talk).

Github appears to be an even better venue with even better contribution  
mechanisms for such an effort. I would support the crowd-source approach  
for the Guidebook (it was already how we envisioned things with  
ModernGuide), as the W3C MarComm team had to pick other priorities but  
some oversight makes sense, and is feasible.

There are portions of the Guidebook that are specific to Groups  
progressing on specs; that aspect would be jointly overseen by Comm team  
and Philippe Le Hégaret who took over "Publications (policies and tools)"  
and "Member Submissions", or overseen by PLH only.

I am not familiar with Github yet, but I feel a growing pressure to really  
go out and find a beginner's guide to Github (or "GitNoob", or "I survived  
CVS and wikis, I'm ready for github".)

Coralie

-- 
Coralie Mercier  -  W3C Marketing & Communications -  http://www.w3.org
mailto:coralie@w3.org +336 4322 0001 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 11:20:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 29 April 2015 11:20:13 UTC