- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 13:00:23 +0200
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
- CC: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, "jicheu@yahoo.fr" <jicheu@yahoo.fr>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>, W3C Members <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
On 07/08/2014 17:48 , David Singer wrote: > On Aug 7, 2014, at 3:19 , Olivier Thereaux > <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote: >> There is no question that the W3C has been working very hard to >> become and remain an open and transparent organisation. > > That started soon after we stopped beating our wives. :-) > > Seriously, your sentence suggests it was not at some point in its > past. Can we stop insulting ourselves like this? I find that today's W3C does not meet my criteria for openness to a level that satisfies me. The W3C of fifteen years ago with closed groups and member-only editors' drafts far, far less so. It's doesn't mean that the people involved in it were somehow evil. It doesn't mean that they weren't committed to an open Web. But calling the W3C from back then an open organisation would be stretching things a bit. I really don't see where the insult is. Openness is *hard*. It is all the harder if you're trying to make it sustainable, which does tend to require some form of income model. Noting that it can and should be striven for, that we can improve it, that we sometimes fail to meet its exacting demands is just a logical path towards improvement. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 11:00:40 UTC