W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2009

Re: W3C communities and its modus operandi

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 13:12:32 +0000
Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-Id: <75DC93D8-70EB-4156-B379-7F9BE3C397D9@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Thanks for weighing in!

On 28 Feb 2009, at 22:53, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> * Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> This message makes specific claims about numerous process violations.
>> And not ones open to interpretation. I see a follow up from some W3C
>> staff (including Tim Berners-Lee) but I just *don't know what
>> happened*. I've no sense how things directly played out. I could find
>> out, but it's a heck of a lot of work and it would just be me.
>
> As far as the Team's reaction to procedural doubts is concerned, I am
> very happy with how things turned out for the better; I think this is
> really quite evident if you compare the Team's investigations in such
> matters before and after. Here's a list of all before that I know of:
>
>  * http://www.w3.org/mid/442D7ECC.2090702%40w3.org (member-only)

Ok, it's not immediately obvious to me how that report connects to  
your original message, but I see a link to a LC comment report, so  
maybe I can tease it out.

(This, I think, shows the PR/organizational problem with the current  
set up. I can easily find your complaint, but not the handling thereof.)

> And a list of all the later ones, including corrections to old ones:
>
>
> There may be even more, but matters eventually reached a point where
> I no longer had any reason to express doubts, and consequently paid
> less attention. Reviewing all of them is perhaps too much work, but
> some of them deal specifically with the cases you mention -- I think
> they are quite representative of the Team's current interest in them.

Thanks very much for the pointers. When I get time to attempt a  
"lessons learned" report on this, I hope you won't mind reviewing it.

> What is also clear from some of these reports is that matters are more
> open to interpretation than one might think! The Team addressed those
> cases by updating the Process document in no small manner, so that it
> better reflects the Team's understanding and current practises. You
> can find the then-current Process document under
>
>  http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/
>
> And a list of changes they have made since:
>
>  http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/ProcessChanges

Again, it's not immediately obvious to me which changes relate to your  
original complaint, but I'll keep it on the list to ferret out.

> Okay, they may have toned down some things a bit that I'd rather have
> stressed, but ultimately I also have to agree that setting  
> expectations
> properly is more important than having a seemingly ideal process.

Totally.

> In this spirit, I hope my message helps setting your expectations,  
> too.

Well, it confirms my expectation that it is difficult to trace out the  
response to problems, esp. if one has only public access. It also  
confirms my expectation that the W3C staff cares about both it's  
formal process and the substantive effects thereof.

Thanks very much for the additional pointers and information.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 13:13:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:28 UTC