- From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:16:17 +0200
- To: "paoladimaio10@googlemail.com" <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
+ paoladimaio10@ - paola.dimaio@ 19.09.2014, 08:16, "Paola Di Maio" <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>: > Renato, > > I agree. As schema.org implementations become more established, and acquire > general importance, it would be good to see principles of open > governance reflected in the administration of the same. [...] > There are however hybrid models of participatory governance, whereby > for example the 4 owners set up a process of taking recommendations and > inputs from the community (including voting if necessary) in a more > formalized/structured process, and each decision taken by the owners > without the community input/vote is justified by the owners in some > other way Actually I think there is a simpler approach, *IFF* we are prepared to wear the overhead of testing and reaching consensus among the broader group who would like to be consulted. Which is a non-trivial amount of extra administrative work, both for participants and the chair. It seems that without search engines planning to *use* schema.org it would never have the uptake it does. So I suspect that in many cases, if the serach engine owners are pretty clear that they are not interested in and not likely to implement a particular proposal, that proposal will have a hard time getting enough traction to achieve consensus. In addition, of course, while consensus isn't unanimity if it is clear that an important group of stakeholders (e.g. search engines) are more or less en bloc opposed to something, declaring that there is a consensus seem "courageous" at best. cheers chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 19 September 2014 09:16:58 UTC