Webizen progress and next meeting

Hi,

After listening to all of the dialogue of the last call and trying to sort through the various emails, I really am beginning to wonder if we are not a solution in search of a problem.  I think we have already gotten too far into the weeds of what the program should look like instead of discussing if we really need a program at all.

1) Per the wiki, we have articulated the goals as: Attract more stakeholders, get closer linkages, increase general public review, provide a means for influence, information sharing, & enhanced stewardship.  

2) In looking at these goals, I have to ask why?  I ask this because based on the current membership structure and span of control:

2a) W3C has many wildly successful specifications that have broadly advanced the W3C vision for the Web. 
2b) New recommendations are in the queue that are eagerly anticipated by the web community. 
2b) W3C recommendations are generally accepted as tantamount to De Jure standards around the globe.  
2c) W3C has more than enough participation in our working groups (in fact sometimes too much participation). 

3) Based on 2, I really wonder: Why do we even need to be having this task force?  I ask this because based on what I have seen and heard so far, the answer to each of the following questions is a resounding no:

3a) Do we believe that our current recommendations are deficient in quantity or quality?
3b) Do we see that achieving the goals of this TF will somehow improve the quality or quantity of our recommendations?
3c) Do we believe that achieving the goals of this TF will somehow result in broader recognition, acceptance and/or adoption of W3C Recommendations?
3d) Is our current pre-eminent Web standards position threatened by individual web heads to the point that we desperately need to co-opt them?
3e) Will achieving the goals of this TF somehow strengthen the W3C with respect to its competitors?
3f) Will this program increase W3C membership and revenue?

4) Looking at the individual goals, the question then becomes:

4a) Attract more stakeholders - hmm.  Do we think that we will somehow increase a sense of ownership by webheads, and if so, why and for what purpose?
4b) get closer linkages - are we really lacking in this area in a manner that hurts the quality of our recommendations?
4c) increase general public review - The director already welcomes comments from anyone.  What is the deficiency that we are trying to overcome, and does it take a new category of participation or a simple change to the review process?
4d) provide a means for influence - Be careful what you wish for.  Do we really want more outside influence on the development of our recommendations, and will such outside influence enhance or detract from their quality and more importantly their adoption - especially by the major players who are in reality the parties that drive widespread adoption.
4e) information sharing - we have a publicly available website, publicly available draft specifications at every step in the process, publicly available comment mechanisms.  How will the webizen program improve over what we have?
4f) Enhanced stewardship - Do we somehow believe that the current membership and leadership is somehow deficient in its stewardship of the web?

Finally, we have a separate thread on the AC list around the Openness and Transparency CG.  Although there is some issue with the name - a sentiment I don't share - Perhaps a CG is the real solution here (other than the W3C desire for increased revenue from this program).  The CG could function as a webizen ecosystem, with leaders and followers who could use the forum to express their ideas in whatever level of formality they chose with minimal impact on staff. Wouldn't that be sufficient as a mechanism to increase interaction, provide a sense of participation, etc?



Best Regards,
Mark

Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 16:11:11 UTC