- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 00:14:10 -0400
- To: delfin@delfiramirez.info
- CC: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <53914012.3090006@w3.org>
On 6/6/2014 12:11 AM, Delfi Ramirez wrote: > > 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. > OK, thanks, no worries. > 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) Verdié >>> <jicheu@yahoo.fr <mailto: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. >>> >>> * We're not a democracy nor a country FWIW. We belong to a >>> consortium and our companies pay an insane amount of money >>> to get there. >>> >>> (I'm not sure it is insane - in our case we regard it as an important >>> investment, if not a cheap one - but Yeah). >>> >>> Indeed. And when it comes to voting, we are a relatively small group who >>> find such data about what our competitors do quite valuable. Which is why >>> I think it is reasonable to be cautious in releasing it. I believe that >>> too much transparency will have an effect on the way votes are cast, and I >>> doubt this would be a good thing. >>> >>> Secret ballots are secret for good reasons. Given the size of our >>> community, it isn't unfeasible to make some decent guesses and have a >>> pretty strong sense about what the data really means, >>> >>> …I'd like to understand how such an amount of money do not >>> bring people to believe it's important to contribute, at >>> least when it comes to voting (for AB/TAG but also for >>> chartering). * Same thing on different angle, I was not >>> aware of such a poor engagement. Probably some more work >>> needs to be done here. AB? Elsewhere? I'll be happy to help. >>> >>> I think it is unfortunate that AC members cannot afford to be more >>> engaged. But then, a lot of the members are quite small, and the cost of >>> serious engagement in everything the AC does is quite high. Focusing on >>> areas of priority to an individual member makes sense, so I doubt we'll >>> ever get the sort of engagement we would really like to have. Indeed, if >>> we are successful in becoming more directly relevant for developers and >>> others on a large scale, I suspect the price will be that they are even >>> less able to follow everything we do - not because it isn't transparent >>> but because the volume of information is too great. >>> >>> A couple of things can help: >>> + dashboards >>> + information architecture >>> >>> W3C has a pretty chaotic, as well as large, pile of information it >>> produces. This is not altogether a surprise - they devote their resources >>> to the most urgent things we scream for, as a rule, and a little to the >>> important things that have to be done. But taming and chanelling the >>> information flow to make it more efficient to process, and therefore more >>> effective, is a major task, and a very difficult one. Helping with that >>> strikes me as the single most valuable thing to do to increase engagement. >>> >>> * As Daniel stated for himself regarding last year's ballot, >>> I'd really like to know my own results. It's important for >>> me to know if I needed two other ballots to get elected or >>> if I had 0 casts. That would determine my future willingness >>> to run again or not BTW. If this is really humiliating then >>> may be the W3C can communicate this information privately to >>> candidates. >>> >>> I agree this information should be available to individual candidates if >>> they want it, in confidence (i.e. they would not be at liberty to start >>> de-anonymising the public data without more general consent). >>> >>> * 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 results of the >>> last 2 AB ballots bring a lot of information about the >>> direction the AC Reps want the consortium to take, detailed >>> results would probably bring a lot of additional valuable data. >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandexchaals@yandex-team.ru <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> Find more athttp://yandex.com >>> >>> -- >>> delfin@delfiramirez.info <mailto:delfin@delfiramirez.info> >>> http://delfiramirez.info <http://delfiramirez.info/> >>> skype username: segonquart >>> twitter:@delfinramirez >>> common weblog: http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com >>> <http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com/> >>> about: Technology Lover & good cook. >>> place: Somewhere over Europe. > -- > delfin@delfiramirez.info <mailto:delfin@delfiramirez.info> > http://delfiramirez.info <http://delfiramirez.info/> > skype username: segonquart > twitter:@delfinramirez > common weblog: http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com > <http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com/> > about: Technology Lover & good cook. > place: Somewhere over Europe.
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 04:14:20 UTC