WorkGroup Funding - re: HTML WG Face to face meeting call for interest

Just trying to push some ideas across (and push my luck) - 

If the large organisations involved want to portray a fair and balanced way
of creating the new versions we are working on, then everyone has to attend
the meetings. If it's just those that can afford to, the final spec will not
(no matter what people may say) be a valid and just portrayal of everyone's
equal opinions.

Could we not establish some funding from some of the larger organisations
who wish to show this fair and just image, to enable those of us who's
company are not funding us for this, to attend such events ?

That way the final result is what everyone wants, not just what those that
can 'afford' to want.

I can see people might complain that funding may bias, but if the funding is
controlled, and a group majority decision is made on the way any such money
is spent - surely it can only be a good thing.

Only my views (and perhaps a way a few more of us can attend these events).

Many companies do it already.

Just ideas.....

- Gavin

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Dan Connolly
Sent: 21 March 2007 14:20
To: Sander Tekelenburg
Subject: Re: HTML WG Face to face meeting call for interest

On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 14:53 +0100, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
> At 17:54 -0500 UTC, on 2007-03-19, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > If you're interested in face-to-face meetings,
> > either this November or before then, perhaps
> > in May, please fill out this survey this week:
> >
> Only a single day later the poll is closed already?! Expecting this sort
> ultra high speed response may be realistic for those of us who get paid to
> participate in the HTML WG, but the rest of us has more to do. I hope that
> with future polls more time is allowed for people to respond -- probably a
> week should be the minimum.

Please, a little slack... I never expected ultra high speed
response. I meant to give you this whole week
but made a mistake filling out the form. The deadline is
now this Friday (unless I goofed again, in which case, please
let me know, gently).

> FWIW, I would have voted "no", because [1] I agree with Ian Hickson's
> objections and [2] such a meeting is way too costly to me both in terms of
> time and money, especially given [1] :)
Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:42:59 UTC