RE: Webizen progress and next meeting

Charles,

Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful replies.  My comments inline as MC:
> 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.

CMN: I don't think we are quite there, but we risk ending up like that.
MC: In my mind,  If we don't articulate goals that will actually improve the quality of W3C recommendations, then we are a solution in search of a problem.

> 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?

CMN: 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,

MC: If we are delivering the best thing out there that has both technical quality and buy-in from those who we NEED (emphasis added) to deploy them, then what do we hope to gain?  Broader deployment?

CMN: 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.

MC: So if the goal is broader review of the work in progress, I am not sure we have articulated that as a goal.  Further, I would argue that if this is the goal, then we are on the wrong track and need to look at broader participation at the WG level rather than at the AC level.

CMN: 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...

MC: But do we feel that the narrow selection is driven by the current structure?  Do we believe that there is a massive hue and cry out there to be able to more actively participate in our work?  Or are there pockets of highly qualified individuals who have raised an issue and for whatever reason choose to do their work elsewhere?  If the latter, do we know what those issues are?

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

CMN: 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.

MC:  This goes back to your point above regarding active participation in the development of the specifications.  Is that our underlying goal?

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

CMN: 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.

MC:

CMN: 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.

MC:  Can you clarify "representative voice?"  Are we talking about active participation in the WG's or a voice at the table of the AC?  Does the latter really address the former?  I would argue that it does not given the nature of the AC and what we do.  If we are focused on broader participation at the WG level to drive wider adoption, and IF we have consensus on that, then we should design a program for greater involvement at that level and leave the AC and approval process alone.


> 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?

CMN: 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.

MC:  There is that collaboration word again :-).  Collaboration would require a seat at the table of the specifications of interest as they are being developed.  Is that what we want?  If so, how do we control it to avoid being overrun by independents or having the specifications diluted to the point where they become unfit for large scale enterprise adoption?

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

CMN: 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.

MC:  Do we have real world examples of how those heroic individuals have "saved" the web from the evil intent of the W3C?  In terms of consensus, we seem to operate under consensus with the opportunity for external input, so I am still unclear what we want to change and how the current thinking of the group will achieve that.

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

CMN: 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.

MC:  Without agreeing or disagreeing with the forgoing, the marketing survey is critically important before we do anything else to ascertain exactly what would and would not work to achieve what you are articulating. The design of the marketing survey needs to be such that it focuses on what you have articulated (assuming consensus as to your objectives) which is different in my mind from what we have been discussing so far.  Your recurring theme seems to be increased participation at the specification development stage rather than at the governance level.  To do so will require rethinking to what extent webizens would be allowed to participate; who selects (governs) their participation; determining if they have the same voice as paying member companies in terms of input and WG approval; deciding if they can propose WGs consisting entirely of webizens for recommendation development; and so on.

> 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?

CMN: 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).

MC: Not sure that whatever we design will achieve this without full membership rights.

CMN: 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.

MC:  For this I go back to my ecosystem concept which doesn't require any membership, but rather an active involvement of the WGs to share ideas in a new forum with webizens to share concepts, issues, and solutions as a mechanism to achieve that design time input you mention as essential.  A properly designed ecosystem does not require a seat at the table, rather an effort to get involvement and to maintain the dialogue.  If there is true interest in all that you mention above, this would be a good mechanism to foster that input and provide feedback to it.  The only cost for the W3C would be for providing the mechanism.  The greater cost would of course fall on the various WGs to use the ecosystem for sharing information and for being receptive to the input received.

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

CMN: Yep.

MC:  Hmm, not sure this is consistent with what I understand you to have written earlier in this thread, so will revisit.

> 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?

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

MC:  Based on your answers above, review is not so much the issue as input during design time, so perhaps we should rethink listing this as a goal so as to avoid addressing a non-issue.

> 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.

CMN: 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.

MC:  Once again you focus on design time (not criticizing, just highlighting).  In my mind that means that we need to reconsider the goal and approach of the initiative and assuming there is consensus that we need to increase such participation, to rethink the W3C membership structure as the only way to actually achieve what you are focused on.  I am not sure how to do that nor what the expense would be in terms of membership/participation/continued support for W3C recommendations from major corporations who contribute the lion's share of the W3C revenue.


> 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?

CMN: By getting an engaged audience.
MC: Same response as elsewhere above, specifically around where you want the engagement.

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

CMN: Not really, although we could (always) do better.
MC: I am not sure we have consensus around this as a goal as I don't think it is relevant to the current governance model.

> 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?

CMN: 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...

MC:  Given your focus on design time, I would agree that the CG would not fit.  However, I am not sure I agree with any design time involvement and think the CG might achieve some of the goals without messing too much with what I see as a successful model for developing high quality recommendations that have broad adoption.

Best Regards,
Mark

Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 13:40:38 UTC