- From: Delfi Ramirez <delfin@delfiramirez.info>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 06:11:03 +0200
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <8109a5e8273f46637823fc33b7219902@correoweb.delfiramirez.info>
Dear Jeff, dear all: My apologies if my assertion "to introduce democratic procedural methods for the W3C." has lead to a misunderstood. Far from my intention was to considero think that the current election methods are non-democratic, but to emphatize yourdecision for a revision and ehnancement of the election system. best On 2014-06-06 05:31, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > On 6/4/2014 6:44 PM, Delfi Ramirez wrote: > >> Dear all: >> >> I have been quietly and deeply following yourconversation/discussion about the possibility to introduce democratic procedural methods for the W3C. > > I would be interested in why you think the current election methods are not democratic. > > There are many ways to run an election; each has advantages and disadvantages. Some have argued passionately on this thread for STV; others have said that is too complicated. But in any case, I don't understand why it would be characterized as not democratic. > >> As a public participant of this group, and not being affiliated --yet -- with any corp that can represent a candidate, I agree completely with the observations of Charles expressed in the last email.- >> >> There is the need to be cautios publishing data, even if we advocate for an open web. >> >> There is also the need for transparency and the use of democratic methods like elections are. Even if we all belong to different cultures or scenarios. And considering the W3C as a consortium. I do not see this as problem, but as an advantage. >> >> Consortiums may advocate and put in practice for themselves democratic behaviours and protocols internally. This is good. It brings whealth and health to the consortium and, besides, tangential value for the companies who take part of this consortium. >> >> Being a public member, with no other interest than to spread and advocate the goods of web standards and apply them in fields of work within companies or in companies, I would be pleased to see that the consortium has similar democratic rules as a held has with its stakeholders or leveraged shareholders. A reduced but positive election system. >> >> To vote means to participate, and to participate means offering solutions and work. >> >> My interests and appreciation for the work done by the W3C, where I have been kindly invited and where I am taking part since the year 1999, is mainly because I consider it focused on a public common, this is the web standards, and the web. >> >> As it is said before, to preserve the quality and excellence of the work done by Chairsand Commitee of the W3C, the observations of Charles expressed in the last email: >> >> - be cautious. >> >> - be transparent. >> >> - promote and advocate for all the necessary members. >> >> - organize internal charts >> >> - have an architecture of "presentation" which may allow the internal infomation retrieved, to be this clear and comprehensible. >> >> cheers >> >> On 2014-06-04 23:54, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 11:24:45 +0200, Jean-Charles (JC) VerdiƩ >>> <jicheu@yahoo.fr> wrote: >>> >>>> (omnibus reply) * I acknowledge there are cultural differences which make it tricky to publish results given it was not stated before the election began. But this is an assumption. That'd be great if someone neutral (within the team?) contacted each candidate in person to get their actual feeling about it. >>> >>> I'm not sure I qualify as neutral. But I have talked to a lot of >>> candidates and potential candidates over the years, and I thnk it is >>> pretty clear that right now publishing the number of votes named >>> candidates receive would have a chilling effect on how willing some good >>> candidates are to stand. >>> >>>> * I'm not sure these cultural differences still make sense when it comes to anonymised results. If we read that candidate "A" got 3 ballots and candidate "B" got 98, that's probably fine with respect to the future life of candidate "JC" or "Virginie", given that it's not so easy (out of 12 people) to identify who is A and who is B. >>> >>> Right. For the moment, I would not support releasing more identifying >>> information than that. >>> * I don't mix transparency with trust. I trust the W3C not to tamper with the results (but I trusted a lot of companies not to tamper with my data until some revelations happened last year so...). but trusting the W3C does not mean I do not want to understand what's going on. The >>> >>>> sortium to take, detailed results would probably bring a lot of additional valuable data. >>>> >>>> Agreed. >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> >>>> -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com >> >> -- >> >> delfin@delfiramirez.info [1] >> http://delfiramirez.info [2] >> skype username: segonquart >> twitter:@delfinramirez >> common weblog: http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com [3] >> about: Technology Lover & good cook. >> place: Somewhere over Europe. -- delfin@delfiramirez.info [4] http://delfiramirez.info [5] skype username: segonquart twitter:@delfinramirez common weblog: http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com [6] about: Technology Lover & good cook. place: Somewhere over Europe. Links: ------ [1] mailto:delfin@delfiramirez.info [2] http://delfiramirez.info/ [3] http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com/ [4] mailto:delfin@delfiramirez.info [5] http://delfiramirez.info/ [6] http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com/
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 04:11:29 UTC