- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 13:17:37 +0200
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- CC: "jicheu@yahoo.fr" <jicheu@yahoo.fr>, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>, W3C Members <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
On 08/08/2014 02:04 , David Singer wrote: > Mind you, I’d prefer we work grounded in real problems. Can someone > point at an instance where someone or something suffered as a result > of a lack of openness or transparency? Without actual cases to > ameliorate, I am fearful this could spend a lot of effort to little > effect. “I tried to find X but could not.” “I tried to communicate > Y but could not.” and so on. Anyone have specific instances? Well, we still publish our documents under closed licenses for instance. That forces us to remain stuck in antiquated collaboration models. A lot of people are raising concerns with the way the W3C runs itself, as part of the renewed interest in the organisation over the past few years. I don't necessarily agree with all of those concerns, but I'm happy that people have it: it means we're alive. Nevertheless, the AB remains to a large extent opaque in its operations. It's hard to reform when you can't see the dynamics at play. It also gives an unfair advantage to old hacks (such as yours truly) who know exactly who to bribe for information over newcomers who want the organisation to head in a given direction. This is notably important given the several requests to improve the Process, and the AB's involvement in that. None of this is the end of the world. But they are genuine issues of openness and transparency. This CG opens a venue in which outsiders can petition on similar topics. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 11:17:49 UTC