RE: Seeking feedback from AB nominees on a few items

Art, and all,

1) AB getting public conversation when related to process

2) AB self elected
Migrating from 'few informed elected people' to a 'large collaborative AB' is a good thing for democracy. But we should keep in mind that W3C management need to have a reliable partner, here, representing the members, being able to deliver recommendation/answer to specific questions and suggest improvement plans, according to members priority. Some recommendation to make sure it would work : 
- have the official endorsement by company to have the "self elected" people attending the F2F meetings and calls - to make sure the mandate can be executed
- have mandate of one year with a clear mission for the participants - so that individual can resign quickly if the mandate does not suit
- make sure the AB meetings/calls are open to observer (this would help to make the difference between people interested to follow the discussions and people interested to have a mandate)
A simple way to migrate to this situation would be to have more AB seats (20 or so, I think it would represent the number of usual people raising their voice for AB discussions), keeping the election (that may be just a formal step), and improving the communication/visibility of the AB by regular survey to members, to trigger the culture of people contributing on topics falling in the domain of AB. And if this works, it means we are ready to go for the self elected process. 

Thanks again Art for pushing us to that discussions. 

Virginie GALINDO
Chair of the Web Crypto WG
Tentatively AB candidate

-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Barstow [] 
Sent: mardi 21 mai 2013 23:03
To: Tantek Çelik; Michael Champion; Don Deutsch; Yosuke Funahashi; GALINDO Virginie; Daniel Glazman; Ora Lassila; Charles McCathieNevile; Soohong Park; Roberto Scano; David Singer; Chris Wilson
Cc: public-w3process
Subject: Seeking feedback from AB nominees on a few items

Hello AB Nominees,

I am interested in your comments on two items ...

1. One of the things that is somewhat unique about AB members is they are expected to "use their best judgment to find the best solutions for the Web, not just for any particular network, technology, vendor, or user" [1]. Since this implies AB members represent "everyone" including non W3C Members, it seems somewhere between ignorant/remiss to at least a tad bit hubristic, for the AB to continue to conduct its process related discussions in a non-Public forum. To address this issue, I propose:

* All AB discussions related to W3C processes (e.g. the W3C Process
Document) are to be conducted in a Public forum (e.g. public-w3process list).

2. A few years ago [2] and again this week [3], some members of the Advisory Committee discussed a proposal to change the AB to be "self-selecting" i.e. to eliminate the voting. Unfortunately, those threads are Member-confidential so if you can't read them, I can at least highlight my comments on those threads (if you'd like me to do so).

I would appreciate if the AB nominees would please share their thoughts on these two items.

-Thanks, ArtB

[1] <>
[2] <>
[3] <>

Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 08:43:44 UTC