Re: Success in a WG

Robin

I think I used a poor choice of words when I said "art for art's sake" to
differentiate what might better be called a multidimensional project from a
project dedicated to creating a fixed standard with the object of gaining
global interoperability, ideally in the shortest period of time possible.

The main question I was raising, without trying to presume the answer, was
whether, as an allocation of resources point of view, the W3C would want to
host projects that were not intended to follow the latter course.  It may
be that for current purposes resources are unlimited, in which case the
only question might be whether the W3C would have any concerns about "brand
dilution" if it hosted projects that led to output that was not fixed,
resulting either in a lack of uptake, or concerns over whether W3C
standards could be relied on to provide reliable interoperatibily over
time.

Again, I am not presuming the answer, because concerns relating to public
perceptions can be dealt with through careful messaging.  But it also might
be that resources are limited, in which case this might represent one,
among other, considerations to be taken into account in assessing
eligibility to the program.

Andy
public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org wrote on 06/28/2010 05:55:31 AM:

> 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/

>
>
>
>
>
>

See the new Gesmer.com http://www.gesmer.com


_____________________________________________________________
Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein   
   (including any attachments) is not intended to be and        
   cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding
   tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. (The
   foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S.
   Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)<br><br>
                                                             
   Electronic mail from Gesmer Updegrove LLP, 40 Broad       
   Street, Boston, MA 02109. Voice: (617) 350-6800, Fax:     
   (617) 350-6878. This communication is intended only for   
   the use of the individual or entity named as the          
   addressee. It may contain information which is privileged
   and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not
   the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or
   agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
   copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly
   prohibited. If you have received this communication in
   error, please immediately notify Christopher O'Sullivan at
   (617) 350-6800 and notify the sender by electronic mail.
   Please expunge this communication without making any
   copies. Thank you for your cooperation.