W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Participation in good standing

From: Geoff Deering <gdeering@acslink.net.au>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:44:47 +1100
Message-ID: <3FDFA6FF.3060207@acslink.net.au>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Cc: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> W3C is a consortium with a set of rules ("The Process Document") 
> designed to ensure that the massive variety of stakeholders get some 
> kind of accountability, whether or not they are actual members of the 
> Consortium. (This could be contrasted to many similar organisations 
> with similar impact that are not prepared to make themselves so open). 
> You can check these - they are published at 
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
etc, etc.

Hi Charles,

I have no problem with this process and support it as probably the only 
way to get things done, but there does seem to need to be some other way 
or avenue for people to be involved.  But also, what you say about 
reading the mailing list and sending timely regrets as remaining in good 
standing is only born out when you render that interpretation of the 

 From what I see, it is only those who do this and participate in 
regular teleconferences that remain in good standing, and I don't really 
have a problem with that.  Even you, with all your past participation 
and involvement have been taken off the PIGS list.

I am also in this situation with ATAG.  I am passionate about the issues 
there, because like Joe, I believe a better document / recommendation 
will be more readily understood, accepted and adopted by the web 
community as a whole.  But I have just had to agree to it's charter to 
be a part of that working group.  I have two voices in my head (yes, I 
am mad), one saying; "For Sanity's sake Geoff, you are committing 
yourself beyond all your resources", the other saying; "You have to do 
this to save mankind:-)"... well not quite.. as a sit at my computer 
with cape and mask.

I hope you get the drift, it's not easy for some of us to balance these 
commitments, it seems to me that a lot of the people in this area have 
part of their paying job description / time allocation to W3C 
activities, let alone the international phone calls and international 
face to faces.

I'm not asking the charter to be changed or amended as such, just to 
look at something to be done for those who sincerely and passionately 
want to contribute and be involved in the discussion and forging of the 
recommendations.  I don't know how, just that I don't want to see the 
charter restrict valuable contributions.  If it can be determined that 
the person is at least genuinely trying to contribute to the degree they 
can most facilitate, maybe that is acceptable.

I do notice however that WAI is one of the few W3C groups that is so 
open to individual participation (at least I think so).

... I'll be away for a bit over a week... Internet free zone.

Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2003 19:45:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:46 UTC