Re: SWICG Community Meeting on September 22nd

> However, that might not have the desired effect.  Since at the W3C people
naturally represent their employers.

I agree some part of that is natural, people naturally have their
perspectives and experience shaped by their current employer. But also our
perspectives and experiences are shaped by past employers, hobby projects,
passions, social goals and discussions with other people, so I have always
assumed folks try to figure out a good way forward (modulated by those
different perspectives) that is acceptable within their employer's
constraints (if any).

It's been my experience as somebody long adjacent to the W3C but never a
member, that it's been quite possible to participate, influence or learn
without being a member.  That can involve informal side conversations,
persuasive writing, or demonstrating proof-of-concept via working code, as
well as formal mechanisms like contributing to specs or being in meetings
as an expert.

Lisa


On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 8:17 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> pá 22. 9. 2023 v 17:08 odesílatel Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
> napsal:
>
>> So, there have been issues raised on-list by Lisa R. and Jon P. about
>> transparency and participation in a WG.
>>
>> We didn't get those perspectives in the call.
>>
>> Do we have ways to incorporate these concerns into the scope of a charter
>> for the WG? And if we can do so, would that resolve those objections?
>>
>
> The charter could make some statements about diverse participation, or
> have a certain policy on that topic.
>
> However, that might not have the desired effect.  Since at the W3C people
> naturally represent their employers.
>
> At the same time, there does not seem to be a concrete alternative path
> proposed, at this point.
>
>
>>
>> Evan
>>
>> On Sept 22, 2023 10:43, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Minutes:  https://www.w3.org/2023/09/22-social-minutes.html
>>
>> pá 22. 9. 2023 v 14:56 odesílatel Benjamin Goering <ben@bengo.co> napsal:
>>
>> If there is time at the end of the agenda, I’d like to discuss with those
>> present their views on an operational agreement on a hypothetical
>> operational agreement to not adopt group decisions via sync calls, and
>> especially If the text/rationale of those group agreements is crafted on
>> the same call. This was very common in SocialWG, but it seems ripe for
>> abuse (e.g. wait for someone to not attend a meeting and then decide to
>> propose/pass something), and not the best way of ensuring broad consensus
>> mandate, and not the best way to ensure we make hard group decisions with
>> well-considered and defensible rationale.
>>
>> If there’s not time, no worries. We can discuss async on-list.
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2023, at 7:48 AM, Aaron Gray <aaronngray@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have a link to the meeting please ?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>> On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 11:15, Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I added a link to the TPAC SocialCG meeting to
>> https://github.com/swicg/meetings
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 12:36 AM Juan Caballero <
>> virtualofficehours@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I like the github.com/swicg approach being used so far!
>>
>> On 9/21/2023 8:54 PM, James wrote:
>> > Do you have a preference with regard to where meeting notes should be
>> > archived? We will make sure all minutes from last week's TPAC meetings
>> > are archived.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Gray - @AaronNGray@fosstodon.org
>>
>> Independent Open Source Software Engineer, Computer Language Researcher,
>> Information Theorist, and Computer Scientist.
>>
>>
>>
>>