Re: Webizen progress and next meeting

On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:10:40 +0200, Crawford, Mark <mark.crawford@sap.com>
wrote:

> 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 don't think we are quite there, but we risk ending up like that.

>  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.

Probably, and these questions you pose are good ones. So...

> 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?

Both. They are often the best thing out there that has both technical
quality and buy-in from those who we need to deploy them, but I believe we
would do better by getting more developers looking at the work W3C is
*doing*, rather than what it has done, and giving feedback.

At the micro level, we have good mechanisms for getting developer
feedback, but in general we have a low level of active developer
participation. Put another way, the feedback is from a very narrow
selection...

> 3b) Do we see that achieving the goals of this TF will somehow improve  
> the quality or quantity of our recommendations?

Getting more developers engaged with the work of W3C earlier could well
lead to better discussion and understanding of the range of use cases, and
the range of likely uses people will make of a given technology. This
should lead to improvement in quality, earlier - i.e. faster delivery and
revision.

> 3c) Do we believe that achieving the goals of this TF will somehow  
> result in broader recognition, acceptance and/or adoption of W3C  
> Recommendations?

Yes. Assuming that there is substantial takeup (I mean thousands of
somewhat active webizens in the short term), I expect a real improvement
in the areas where those people are active.

As I ahve already said, I prefer developers create their own non-profit
and become a member, in many cases, but that simply isn't an option
available to all.

I think Brian and I are thinking along similar lines in the sense that
essentially the webizen program would be performing a minimal organising
function for individuals, giving them a representative voice that I think
would help W3C.

I don't want to see thousands of voices added to discussions on e.g.
ac-forum - that would simply increase the cost of being a full member to
an unsustainable level.

> 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?

In general, no. But both we and they would IMHO do our work better if we
had a means to collaborate that didn't require them to first be employed
by a large company already part of W3C.

> 3e) Will achieving the goals of this TF somehow strengthen the W3C with  
> respect to its competitors?

Certainly. In praticular, it will reinforce to a community who are often
inclined to believe in heroic individuals saving the world in spite of the
corporate dinosaurs that in fact there is a value to consensus, that
organisations of more than 40 people are not ipso facto useless
bureaucracies.

> 3f) Will this program increase W3C membership and revenue?

Not significantly, at first. It needs to be designed carefully so as not
to *decrease* them, but I think it will actually in the medium term have a
beneficial impact on both (if we do it right).

There are many countries in my main wroking region that have ZERO W3C
members. Yet there are thousands upon thousands of people there building
the Web - often as contractors for US- or Europe-based businesses.

These developers make daily decisions that affect the health of the Web.
They are often amazingly interested in what happens at W3C, but since
their "corporate overlords in the West don't see the value of educating
the proles" (toput a praticular unfair slant on it) they have very little
support for interacting with W3C. Add a language barrier, enormous
financial differences, and a culture where big companies who make browsers
are considered all-important, and we are losing a lot of valuable input
and a lot of valuable impact.

If the Webizen program is done right, not only will it attract these
developers as individuals, but it will start to open pathways to
membership for their companies, their local organisations, universities,
etc. by showing the value of participation.

> 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?

Yes.

Because they have an investment in the organisation, and can see that it
is responsive to them (without simply being for sale - they are
participants in a large established organisation and not everything they
come up with will be as brilliant an idea as it seemed in the bar, just as
we have all already learned).

For the purpose of getting faster, and more diverse, deployment of our
work in experimental phases, enabling us to find and fix more mistakes
sooner, while building a good base of skilled implementors for the things
that turn out to work well.

> 4b) get closer linkages - are we really lacking in this area in a manner  
> that hurts the quality of our recommendations?

Yep.

> 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?

I agree that this isn't a particular problem, assuming we deal with the
linkages and breadth of stakeholders.

> 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.

Yes. In far too many cases, the influences in a given specification are a
narrow subset of the peopel at a narrow subset of the major players.
Balancing their input against that of smaller developers

> 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?

By getting an engaged audience.

> 4f) Enhanced stewardship - Do we somehow believe that the current  
> membership and leadership is somehow deficient in its stewardship of the  
> web?

Not really, although we could (always) do better.

> 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?

I think the apparent mindshare in its intended audience suggests that no,
that CG isn't a particularly useful forum for helping people not normally
part of W3C to feel that they are begin engaged with better. This may
change in the future, but I am not convinced that it is the solution we
are looking for...

cheers

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 23:13:09 UTC