Re: Rebalancing How the Web is Built

On 12 September 2016 at 22:08, Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com> wrote:

> Indeed.
>
> Even in the consumer world, some use cases (e.g. P2P, but not shopping)
> may have an API-enabled, non-browser app at both ends. Much as telecom
> flipped from voice, to data-over-voice, to voice-over-data, I suspect we
> will see a shift to API- and network-centric scenarios where browser
> interactions play a much smaller role. Network cases - where an app's user
> is effectively another app - may be particularly important. This may have
> large implications for early standards implementation and adoption
> dynamics. It seems as if the W3C still aspires to be the standards-setter
> for this larger Web Platform... but that's not a given.
>
> In the B2B world, the picture is even clearer: it's not about browsers.
> Some efforts are going on now to define the "Internet of Payments"
> standards, and perhaps a broader framework. W3C is not top of the list of
> relevant standards organizations. Implementations are more likely to depend
> initially on API-enabled connections into widely-deployed financial
> systems.  Ultimately, I suspect that it will make sense to align such an
> IoP effort with a broader-based Web Platform (even if browser use cases
> remain secondary).
>

The W3C is caught between a rock and a hard place.  If they dont listen to
the needs of their large members they run the risk of those players doing
their own thing and claiming the w3c is 'not relevant'.

It's up to the smaller members to counter balance the viewpiont, but that
doesnt happen, or isnt allowed to happen in some cases.

My personal view on this is rather jaded by an poor performance when
applying to join as an Invited Expert.  Having had to wait over 100 days,
then not being told if my application would be accepted, it was then
pointless to really participate.  I am quite sure had I been a rep for a
large company, some of which I have worked for, it would have been a
different story.

Community groups were a way to increase inclusion.  I think they have
worked quite well.  It's the nature of any process that those with fire
power are going to be tempted to game the system.  It's starting to happen
increasingly in standards as revenues get larger.  The only thing I would
suggest is that it's a losing strategy.  Because the web will be around for
decades if not centuries, and companies come and go.  Behaving in a heavy
handed way, may give a short term sugar rush, but the reduction in
longevity of that institution more than over compensates in the other
direction.

One nice thing about the w3c is that all votes are equal.  So, one person
getting involved can have a voice (all be it later in the process)
comparable to a big corp.  What is required from smaller players is to
stand up and be counted which doesnt happen as much as it could.


>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <
> adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:
>
>> > For standards that do not require updating the browser platform the W3C
>> is not a given venue
>>
>> This is an under-considered factor.
>>
>> I would say that it is not the size of organizations that matters but
>> their ability to implement the standards. Since most standards at W3C these
>> days are implemented by, or in conjunction with, browsers they hold all of
>> the power.
>>
>> As Anders suggests, the problem is as much about getting buy in from the
>> most influential members for work that they may not have the power to
>> influence through their implementations as it is persuading them to take an
>> interest.
>>
>>
>> On 12 September 2016 at 18:00, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Manu et.al.
>>>
>>> What I hear in your proposal is a call for Inclusive Web Development.
>>>
>>> Here's a curious thing...
>>>
>>> I and some others on this list have been participating during the past
>>> year and bit in the US Fed's "Faster Payments Task Force", and I reckon all
>>> who have participated would agree with me that their process has been
>>> remarkably inclusive. (Please correct that assessment, if anyone who's been
>>> involved would disagree.) Yet I think in general perceptions, the US Fed is
>>> not typically described as an inclusive sort of consortium.
>>>
>>> Also, later this month the start-up that I lead, which is a
>>> commercially-funded free/libre/source foundation, will be taking part in
>>> the World Trade Organization's 2016 Public Forum where the theme is,
>>> ...wait for it: "Inclusive Trade"  https://www.wto.org/english/fo
>>> rums_e/public_forum16_e/public_forum16_e.htm   And yet the popular view
>>> of the WTO is not that it's particularly inclusive.
>>>
>>> To determine if the W3C is perceived by a significant proportion of new
>>> entrants to Web R&D as falling short on "inclusivity", I wonder if somebody
>>> would set up a respectfully balanced survery with LimeSurvey or
>>> SurveyMonkey or equivalent.
>>>
>>> If such a sentiment that the W3C seriously lacks in terms of inclusivity
>>> is significant by some reasonable metric, surely TBL himself ought to
>>> respond directly to the issue, and at minimum request that staff *and
>>> W3C Members* undertake a process entitled "Inclusive Web Standards".
>>>
>>> Joseph Potvin
>>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/11/2016 12:28 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
>>>> > 1. Don't large W3C member firms often face the same frustrations with
>>>> > other large competitor firms?
>>>>
>>>> Not often and if it does happen, it doesn't happen very publicly.
>>>> Typically less is asked of large organizations trying to do something at
>>>> W3C than small organizations. This may be because large organizations
>>>> vet a lot of this behind the scenes and come into the process more
>>>> prepared. Or it may be because larger organizations don't need to prove
>>>> that they can make the solution work in the market as much as a group of
>>>> smaller organizations because they can usually fall back to the "we have
>>>> millions of customers, of course we can make the standard work in the
>>>> market" argument.
>>>>
>>>> > Is this really a size issue ultimately, or a general governance
>>>> > issue?
>>>>
>>>> It's a bit of both. It's a messy problem.
>>>>
>>>> > 2. Would your proposed approach have W3C funding implications, where
>>>> >  some major donors find it less useful for constraining competition?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, but I think the larger organizations are more concerned about
>>>> the high cost of failure at W3C (staffing costs) rather than the ability
>>>> to constrain competition. I have had discussions with many of the
>>>> Advisory Committee reps from the large organizations and their focus has
>>>> always seemed to be on using W3C resources wisely.
>>>>
>>>> > And one tweak for consideration:
>>>> >
>>>> > RE: "Produce two implementations and a test suite."
>>>> >
>>>> > I'd suggest three, and on different platforms.
>>>>
>>>> The W3C requirements are two so I didn't want to raise the bar more than
>>>> necessary. Also note that these implementations can be /very expensive/
>>>> to implement and raising that particular bar would make it more
>>>> difficult for small organizations to innovate.
>>>>
>>>> -- manu
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>>> blog: Advancing the Web Payments HTTP API and Core Messages
>>>> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/yes-to-http-api/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>