Re: RE : RE : Open and Transparent W3C Community Group Proposed

Some thought on why there is so much pushback on this CG:

My initial negative reaction was not to the CG itself, but my perception that it was "blessed" like this CG is as an agreed-upon forum for the AB to work openly with the web community inside or outside W3C. I'm not at all sure we need another forum besides this one for that purpose. If the AB decides the open and transparent CG is a good joint venue that's OK with me, but that discussion has to happen in the AB first.

My biggest concern in all these intertwined threads is the sense that Openness is touted as a solution for all sorts of unstated problems. I am convinced that discussion is most effective when it starts by building a shared understanding of the PROBLEM, and then finding a solution. "Solutions in search of a problem" by contrast is an anti pattern, and one of the causes of our fad-driven industry.  

So what problem are we trying to solve here? I think it something about declining participation in the traditional w3C process, and/ or the slowness / bureaucracy of the traditional standards process, and maybe frustration with the toxic industry politics or personality clashes in some web technology communities.  Let's identify some problems we think we can address with W3C process or culture changes, and propose,specific solutions we can try out.  I don't doubt that Openness will be a theme in many of these discussions, but let's talk about specific ways openness helps solve problems, and not just use "Open!" as a slogan that substitutes for analysis.

> On Aug 8, 2014, at 7:59 AM, "GALINDO Virginie" <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com> wrote:
> 
> Robin,
> 
> I got your points, and support part of them. My mail was more a tentative to understand why people were getting nervous and why I believed the conversation was conducted with the wrong tones and arguments. I should not have tried that path if you did not get it.
> 
> To be clear, my position is that I am ok with the existence of that CG (and I have no problem with the name, by the way).
> 
> Virginie
> 
> ________________________________________
> De : Robin Berjon [robin@w3.org]
> Date d'envoi : vendredi 8 août 2014 16:36
> À : GALINDO Virginie; David Singer; Sylvain Galineau; jicheu@yahoo.fr; Karl Dubost; Revising W3C Process Community Group; W3C Members; Arthur Barstow
> Objet : Re: RE : Open and Transparent W3C Community Group Proposed
> 
> Hi Virginie,
> 
>> On 08/08/2014 16:11 , GALINDO Virginie wrote:
>> First the condition this CG was created. Imagine that prior to
>> creating it, Art would have socialized it a bit, or would have
>> warned that this CG was a possible mean  to follow up on his
>> willingness to support openess and transparency, calling for
>> contributors and support... I am confident it would not have
>> collected so much cristicism.
> 
> I don't disagree that socialising things can be good, but you can't
> socialise everything to everyone. If you do, you will get
> concern-trolled out of your socks and all the way back to the first cave
> inside which you can crawl and lie down in misery.
> 
> You're not the first person to bring the notion of socialisation. But
> how do you know it wasn't socialised, just to other people?
> 
> CGs are *meant* to be quick. Quick to get started, quick to kill.
> 
> 
>> Second, this CG adresses together the financial, governance,
>> communication and contributions aspects of W3C. AB, AC rep, W3C
>> communication team, the people who had a mandate related to that
>> topic : this is all about their  job (our job). Opening a CG to tell
>> people how they should work, what they did wrong, with no prior
>> communication can be frustrating.
> 
> I don't think that this CG is telling anyone how to do their jobs. At
> least, as Team, I don't feel targeted.
> 
> If anyone has concerns with how open and transparent my work is, please
> take it to the CG!
> 
> 
>> Third, one could suspect this CG to be just another way to propose
>> things that did not get consensus (such as creating a public AB
>> mailing list), and would generate waste of time for everyone, W3C
>> team, AC rep, AB... But lets hope it targets more then that.
> 
> I find this remark to be uncomfortably close to implying that Art might
> just be doing it in a self-serving fashion, in order to bring back the
> items of importance to him, which I don't think is fair.
> 
> Sure enough if we start seeing posts from Craft Caféstow we might be
> suspicious, but otherwise it's billed as a venue for the public. Maybe
> people can make suggestions for things you've rejected but using
> arguments you hadn't considered? Or maybe a lot of people will bring
> them which might change your appraisal of the topic's importance?
> 
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
> ________________________________
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.
>

Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 17:15:48 UTC