Re: [off-topic] Re: Getting stuff done at W3C

On 13 September 2016 at 18:29, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi, Melvin, Manu–
>
> This conversation is interesting, but it's out of the scope of the
> Blockchain CG. Let's please respect others' time and attention, and keep
> our conversations on this list focused on blockchain technology, and not on
> W3C process.
>
>
> That said, I have a response comment which you should feel free to reply
> to offlist, if you wish… :)
>

IMHO W3C process is in scope for a CG.  Particularly one hoping to
transition work to standards track.  That said, I'll keep my reply to a
minimum.


>
> On 9/13/16 9:47 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>> On 9 September 2016 at 03:02, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Here's a blog post that might be useful to folks in this group regarding
>>> getting stuff done at W3C.
>>>
>>> https://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
>>>
>>
>> I think there's a great solution to help this.
>>
>> So the premise is that W3C staff are busy, and that resource shortage
>> leads to less standarization work.
>>
>> I think the problem here is W3C staff wearing too many hats.
>>
>> 1. One hat is to guide the standards process
>> 2. One hat is to guide standards technically
>> 3. One hat is to predict paths to adoption
>>
>> I think W3C staff should stick to (1) in as neutral a way as possible,
>> and leave (2) and (3) as much as possible to the WG or CG, freeing up
>> their time.  (
>>
>
> W3C staff wears a lot more hats than that, but given your problem
> statement and scoping, your solution doesn't resolve the issue.
>
> Part of the reason W3C staff is able to do as much as we can is because we
> pick our battles. We select technologies for development based on our
> technical evaluation of potential impact and value, which is why I'm trying
> to help blockchain work along… I think there's something valuable here.
>
> If W3C weren't so selective, we wouldn't have enough technical staff to
> handle all the resulting working groups. Thus, the rate-limiting is what
> makes it possible for us to manage what we're doing with the limited
> resources we have, just the opposite of what you're suggesting. #2 and #3
> are a relatively smaller percentage of our effort; #1 is the one that
> consumes the most resources. In short, you're reversing causality by making
> false equivalences of effort between tasks.
>
> Further, if W3C didn't guide standards technically and predict paths to
> adoption, we wouldn't have the skill on staff to evaluate technologies for
> quality or market uptake, and the quality of our work and interoperability
> between technologies and between implementations would suffer dramatically.
> W3C staff is discerning by design (even if sometimes flawed), and that's
> why organizations and projects seek to have their specifications worked on
> and published through our process; there are plenty of other standards
> organizations that don't get involved at a technical or architectural
> level, such as OASIS, and there are plenty of people who manage the quality
> of their own work in such organizations.
>

I fully appreciate that the role is a balancing act.  What I think manu and
I are saying is that a rebalancing would be helpful.

W3C staff should not be in the business of predicting paths to adoption
(tempting I know!), because they are often unclear.  Its speculative at
best, and unhelpful at worst. That's the job of the chairs and the
members.  If it has to be done, keep it to an absolute minimum.  This will
allow staff to free up time, and to focus on where they really shine, which
is explaining process and guiding a group on a path towards maturing
standardization.


>
> Regards–
> Doug
>