W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Corporations and the Internet: TED talk

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 15:18:27 -0500
Cc: process-issues@w3.org, public-process-comments@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DB8153A8-A092-41D8-B251-74983E308B00@w3.org>
To: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>

On 17 Jul 2011, at 3:12 PM, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:

> Ian,
> How will you adduce failure & success?
> On what basis did you consider that your proposed approach is suitable?

We put together a task force [1] that came up with a proposal. We will gauge success first in terms of participation.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Newstd

> There is no mention of an external audit either in your response or the links provided.

We spoke with lots of people in and outside W3C to shape the proposal. We did not do a formal audit of the existing process, but people's input was certainly driven in many cases by their experience with the process.

> the links I provided give clear warnings about the potential and/or actual abuse of power by corporations, and the need to enable the internet for the individual citizen.
> in your proposed community groups document, this retained statement appears relevant:
> 	'Community groups emphasize individual innovation and allow an easy way for innovation from individuals to move to the "classic"
> 	W3C standards process, which emphasizes broad consensus-building and implementation among global stakeholders.'
> as the current 'consensus' is measured by corporations, and this appears to be being retained.

> Meeting the needs of the wider public may not be an easy task,
> whereas being led astray by corporations may well be trivial.
> Where is the evidence, that an external audit would provide?
> your supposed changes might be considered mere tokenism by some:
> have you consulted widely to engage a broad audience of non-technical users?
> and identify what there needs and desires might be?
> and what would encourage them to contribute their valuable time?
> have you identified what percentage of contributed man-hours is a success?
> I for one remain to be convinced that this is suitable progress for the past two years,
> neither am I optimistic or enthusiastic about the direction taken.
> Corporate growth is not an appropriate guide,
> and in my view, the W3C mission statement needs to clearly identify the end-user as the major stakeholder,
> and ensure they are encouraged to contribute in meaningful ways that will lead to successful outcomes that are externally audited.

The community group process will open participation to more people. W3C is pursing other avenues to promote inclusion as well; see our public documentation of priorities and milestones in 2011:


> kind regards
> Jonathan Chetwynd
> http://www.peepo.com
> On 17 Jul 2011, at 19:00, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>> http://www.w3.org/QA/2011/06/beta_for_community_groups_unde.html

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
Received on Sunday, 17 July 2011 20:18:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:48 UTC