Re: Overall structure of the W3C

On 8/1/2014 6:27 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 05:02:21 +0200, Nottingham, Mark 
> <mnotting@akamai.com> wrote:
>
>> On <https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities>, the first 
>> bullet in "Overall structure of the W3C" is:
>>
>>> 1. Is the Consortium's current heavy weight structure that was 
>>> created in 1994 still needed now?
>>
>>
>> and Chaals comments: "We don't use the process we had in 1995 or even 
>> in 2005. This question is rhetorically sound but irrelevant."
>>
>> I have to disagree here; this is THE question that the AB should be 
>> addressing. If there's a problem with how the question is phrased, 
>> that's easy enough to fix:
>
> Yes. That was the problem, and I agree that the AB's big permanent 
> task is to look at whether the W3C is appropriately organised...
>
>> 1. Is the Consortium's current structure appropriate to the tasks at 
>> hand and the resources available? Specifically:
>>     a. Is the multiple-Host model helpful to the goals of the W3C, or 
>> a hinderance? Are there alternatives?
>
> My member view is that it is far too focused on the US, with a nod to 
> Europe, meaning the multi-site model is not solving th problem is was 
> meant to solve.

W3C is committed to broadening global participation.  Last year, to 
encourage more participation in China, for example, we added a fourth host.

Chaals, I would be interested in an elaboration of what you are looking 
for.  I know that both the Chinese and Japanese Hosts are very focused 
on meeting the needs of their regions and the size of our European team 
is the same size as our US team.  Still, we can always do better, and 
I'm interested in more discussion of this.

>
>>     b. Is the Team's size and makeup appropriate to our current 
>> workload, considering our limited resources?
>
> Good question. This is something that I think belongs in the scope of 
> the AC, rather than a public group.
>
>>     c. Is the Membership model effective in furthering the goals of 
>> the W3C? What other options are there?
>
> IMHO, I think it is important. Although it is not entirely 
> representative (and to a certain extent shadows the US-heavy focus), 
> having stakeholders actually holding a financial stake is on balance a 
> Good Thing™ in the effort to ensure that W3C is moving in sensible 
> directions.
>
> But alternatives may be interesting, and are worth looking at.
>
> cheers
>
>> As a Member, I'd especially like to understand what the multi-Host 
>> model brings to the table; we don't hear much about it, nor the 
>> activities of the "Steering Committee" (see 
>> <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Agreement/Appendix1-2013.html> section 
>> 3g), which "sets overall policy and provides strategic guidance and 
>> review of the Consortium's activities."
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Mark Nottingham    mnot@akamai.com    https://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 13:28:32 UTC