- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 07:16:15 -0400
- To: jicheu@yahoo.fr
- CC: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, public-openw3c@w3.org
[ + public-openw3c ; apologies for the top-posting but I want to provide some context ] Hi JC, The following information about AB members' role provides my guide: [[ <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AB-TAG-participation> Advisory Board and TAG participants have a special role within W3C: they are elected by the Membership and appointed by the Director with the expectation that they will use their best judgment to find the best solutions for the Web, not just for any particular network, technology, vendor, or user. ]] I don't see anything here that mandates AB members must use Member-confidential means to fulfill their role. In fact, given the emphasis to find "best solutions for the Web", I think AB members and the AB group itself are remiss to not openly and transparently collaborate with the Web, which of course also includes non-Members. As such, I think it is important (a mandate really) that the AB does indeed seek input from the Public thus I believe my e-mail is entirely appropriate (NB: the document has Public read permissions). (I realize some people don't want to use public-w3process for such a discussion. That's fine, we can use public-openw3c instead.) -Thanks, AB On 8/7/14 2:39 AM, "Jean-Charles (JC) Verdié" wrote: > When did the switch to "public" lists for that kind of discussions has > been discussed/approved at the AB? Could you point us to minutes of this > discussion? > > Regards > JC > > Arthur Barstow wrote: >> [ Bcc: w3c-ac-forum; public-openw3c ] >> >> On 7/9/14 8:54 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >>> The Advisory Board created a huge list of its potential "priorities" >>> for 2014-2015. If you have any comments, please send them to this list >>> by July 18 at the latest: >>> >>> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities> >>> >>> I am especially interested in priority ranking type data (f.ex. >>> High/Medium/Low/No priority) as well as other important areas/topics >>> that are missing. >> (Sorry for the late feedback but I was OOO for the last two weeks). >> >> The areas I intend to expend some level of energy are (in order as >> presented in version [1]): >> >> * Consortium priorities; maximizing resource usage >> >> * What are the most important priorities for the Web and W3C >> >> * Member survey as well as a Public survey >> >> * Long-term financial stability >> >> * Membership fee reduction >> >> * The "graveyard of TR" >> >> * Broader industry collaboration on the Open Web Platform >> >> * Best Practices that enable making standards consistent from a >> technical and strategic point of view >> >> Re items related to updating Consortium processes, I consider >> changes/hacks to the Process Document (PD) mostly "make work" unless >> they are directly related to addressing the issues above. For example, >> only make changes that substantially reduce the amount of resources >> needed to support the Consortium's activities. >> >> Comments on the above are of course welcome and encouraged but for >> Public replies, rather than use public-w3process, I think the new >> public-openw3C list [2] is more appropriate. >> >> -AB >> >> [1] >> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2014-2015_Priorities&oldid=75220> >> >> [2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openw3c/> >> >> >>
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 11:16:44 UTC