Re: Success in a WG

Hi Andrew,

On Jun 25, 2010, at 04:39 , Andrew.Updegrove@gesmer.com wrote:
> But seriously. There is a real difference between an open source project, 
> which can, and should, constantly advance the state of the art, and a 
> standards working group, that only provides value when it freezes - at 
> least for a time, between versions, the state of the art. Or at least 
> there has been in the past. 

I am not saying that you are wrong, or that people who disagree with you are right. I am merely pointing out that the position you express here as to the value of a standards working group is not universally shared amongst working group participants, that there are other members of our community who feel differently.

As usual when this type of divide occurs we can simply split and let people go their respective ways, or we can try to find a modus vivendi that works for everyone, and that hopefully works *better* for everyone that the split would.

But before we can make that call, we ought to at least be aware of the diverging visions, and get a feel for their value.

> The W3C has been, at least to my mind, first and foremost about supplying 
> humanity with some of the most important, creative and technologically 
> sophisticated standards the world has seen to date, and upon which we have 
> come to rely to an unsettling degree. We can't afford to have anyone 
> treat them as art for art's sake.

I think that you are mistaken in your characterisation of the position I described (which, at this stage, isn't necessarily mine). In no way is it art for art's sake. It simply treats standards as living documents that are the social objects around which consensus is discussed and enacted. The value here is simply seen as more in the consensus and its deployed implementation than in the freezing of its documentation.

I think that it's a valid question to ask. If you have multiple interoperable and widely deployed implementations, and a large community of authors, around a decently well-written and tested document: what is the value of a Recommendation?

> So here's the question: should the W3C extend its resources to support 
> efforts that by choice may not be interested in ever freezing a work 
> product in a point in time such that it can become useful as a standard? 
> Or should it afford its limited resources to underwrite art for art's sake 
> as well?

Since I find the mention of "art for art's sake" needlessly invidious, allow me to toss it back to you: if you have created a thriving and interoperable ecosystem around your document, isn't pushing it through the motions that lead to Recommendation just art for art's sake?

Note that I am only asking the question. But if we can't answer it, we probably need to rethink the Rec-track value proposition a little bit more than expected.

--
Robin Berjon
  robineko — hired gun, higher standards
  http://robineko.com/

Received on Monday, 28 June 2010 09:56:02 UTC