- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 07:23:01 -0400
- To: "Nottingham, Mark" <mnotting@akamai.com>
- CC: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 7/31/14 11:02 PM, Nottingham, Mark 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: > > 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? > b. Is the Team's size and makeup appropriate to our current workload, considering our limited resources? > c. Is the Membership model effective in furthering the goals of the W3C? What other options are there? > > 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." These are excellent questions Mark! FYI, I added them to the priorities wiki: <https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities#Overall_structure_of_the_W3C> -AB
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 11:23:28 UTC