- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2020 08:43:45 -0500
- To: daniel@dardailler.net
- Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
- Message-ID: <14e87b7e-e5cb-7aa4-f6d2-7c1d8bcb7ad0@w3.org>
On 1/5/2020 8:19 AM, Daniel Dardailler wrote: > > Hello Jeff > > I've added an issue, couldn't find how to label it with the > "director-free" tag though so I put it in the title. I added the tag. > > Wrt to the single person accountability, I understand the aim, but I > think there is not enough distance between persons in our community to > justify such a constraint, vs. the qualitative gain of having a few > specialized accountable persons. > > It would be interesting, as a thought exercise, to re-run - with the > various replacement models in mind, the few cases in W3C history where > Tim had to "really" act as Web architectural arbiter, having heard all > concerns and advises, and deciding publicly as a person, engaging his > name, like for EME, Patent Policy. > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 1:40 PM Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org > <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote: > > Thanks, Daniel. Interesting points-of-view. We've had some of > these discussions and I similarly share some of the concerns about > concentration of authority with the CEO. Most reviewers have > taken the point of view that it is good to have a single > accountable person (who would delegate as you suggest), but your > alternative is also credible and should be discussed as well. > > I'm a bit concern that your concerns raised in an email could get > lost. It might be more effective to raise an issue in the > process-CG GH repository [1] with the label "director-free". That > will ensure that this gets looked at through the process revision > exercise. > > Jeff > > [1] https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues > > On 1/5/2020 7:23 AM, Daniel Dardailler wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> the fate of W3C without Tim has been on my mind long before >> leaving W3C, so I'll give my 2 cents on the recent proposal. >> >> I'm looking at >> https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2Fdirector-free >> >> I'm concerned by two things: >> - the added complexity with two new "committees" >> - the power now residing in the CEO hands. >> >> On the second point, there are now hundreds of references to the >> CEO and Team as decision-makers and with the Team under full >> control of the CEO, this effectively puts all the process >> decisions into one person's hands, which could become an issue in >> the future if this person is not able to handle all this power >> correctly. >> >> I think we should try to categorize the current Director's >> functions along their level of Web technicality, draw a line, and >> give the most technical pieces to someone else than the CEO. Not >> sure to whom, maybe not a single person. You could argue that the >> CEO could delegate these (or whatever) pieces and create such a >> Technical Director function but I'd rather see this implemented >> transparently based on due process. >> >> On the first point, new committees, if there is such a TD >> function, then no need for a new W3C Council providing a higher >> authority for some of the ex-Director/new CEO decisions. Given >> the AC appeal mechanism already in place, and if the main >> technical items are separated, this should not be necessary. >> >> Same idea for the new TAG committee created to select the >> "Director" TAG seats: it should not be necessary with a >> appealable Technical Director function selecting them. And it >> would be better than a pure TAG co-optation procedure.. >> >> So IMO having ome sort of Technical Director function, or a Web >> Architectural Board, would effectively solve both the CEO power >> concentration and the added committees issue. Maybe this function >> could be implemented by a trio: one staff, one TAG, one AB, >> selected by each constituency for a given period, or maybe just >> one person, e.g. the chair of the TAG (since it's for Technical >> stuff). Or maybe by one TAG and a W3C CTO (from staff). >> >> >> Anyway, I also think someone should be assigned to do a quick >> external study on how other relevant SDOs implement their own >> Technical Director function/Arbitrage, and also how organizations >> (non-profit or commercial) deal with their structural issues when >> the Creator (of the technology and the organization) leaves. >> >> Take care. >>
Received on Sunday, 5 January 2020 13:43:54 UTC