- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 01:12:34 +0200
- To: "Webizen TF" <public-webizen@w3.org>, "Crawford, Mark" <mark.crawford@sap.com>
On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:10:40 +0200, Crawford, Mark <mark.crawford@sap.com> wrote: > Hi, > > After listening to all of the dialogue of the last call and trying to > sort through the various emails, I really am beginning to wonder if we > are not a solution in search of a problem. I don't think we are quite there, but we risk ending up like that. > I think we have already gotten too far into the weeds of what the > program should look like instead of discussing if we really need a > program at all. Probably, and these questions you pose are good ones. So... > 1) Per the wiki, we have articulated the goals as: Attract more > stakeholders, get closer linkages, increase general public review, > provide a means for influence, information sharing, & enhanced > stewardship. > > 2) In looking at these goals, I have to ask why? I ask this because > based on the current membership structure and span of control: > > 2a) W3C has many wildly successful specifications that have broadly > advanced the W3C vision for the Web. > 2b) New recommendations are in the queue that are eagerly anticipated by > the web community. > 2b) W3C recommendations are generally accepted as tantamount to De Jure > standards around the globe. > 2c) W3C has more than enough participation in our working groups (in > fact sometimes too much participation). > > 3) Based on 2, I really wonder: Why do we even need to be having this > task force? I ask this because based on what I have seen and heard so > far, the answer to each of the following questions is a resounding no: > > 3a) Do we believe that our current recommendations are deficient in > quantity or quality? Both. They are often the best thing out there that has both technical quality and buy-in from those who we need to deploy them, but I believe we would do better by getting more developers looking at the work W3C is *doing*, rather than what it has done, and giving feedback. At the micro level, we have good mechanisms for getting developer feedback, but in general we have a low level of active developer participation. Put another way, the feedback is from a very narrow selection... > 3b) Do we see that achieving the goals of this TF will somehow improve > the quality or quantity of our recommendations? Getting more developers engaged with the work of W3C earlier could well lead to better discussion and understanding of the range of use cases, and the range of likely uses people will make of a given technology. This should lead to improvement in quality, earlier - i.e. faster delivery and revision. > 3c) Do we believe that achieving the goals of this TF will somehow > result in broader recognition, acceptance and/or adoption of W3C > Recommendations? Yes. Assuming that there is substantial takeup (I mean thousands of somewhat active webizens in the short term), I expect a real improvement in the areas where those people are active. As I ahve already said, I prefer developers create their own non-profit and become a member, in many cases, but that simply isn't an option available to all. I think Brian and I are thinking along similar lines in the sense that essentially the webizen program would be performing a minimal organising function for individuals, giving them a representative voice that I think would help W3C. I don't want to see thousands of voices added to discussions on e.g. ac-forum - that would simply increase the cost of being a full member to an unsustainable level. > 3d) Is our current pre-eminent Web standards position threatened by > individual web heads to the point that we desperately need to co-opt > them? In general, no. But both we and they would IMHO do our work better if we had a means to collaborate that didn't require them to first be employed by a large company already part of W3C. > 3e) Will achieving the goals of this TF somehow strengthen the W3C with > respect to its competitors? Certainly. In praticular, it will reinforce to a community who are often inclined to believe in heroic individuals saving the world in spite of the corporate dinosaurs that in fact there is a value to consensus, that organisations of more than 40 people are not ipso facto useless bureaucracies. > 3f) Will this program increase W3C membership and revenue? Not significantly, at first. It needs to be designed carefully so as not to *decrease* them, but I think it will actually in the medium term have a beneficial impact on both (if we do it right). There are many countries in my main wroking region that have ZERO W3C members. Yet there are thousands upon thousands of people there building the Web - often as contractors for US- or Europe-based businesses. These developers make daily decisions that affect the health of the Web. They are often amazingly interested in what happens at W3C, but since their "corporate overlords in the West don't see the value of educating the proles" (toput a praticular unfair slant on it) they have very little support for interacting with W3C. Add a language barrier, enormous financial differences, and a culture where big companies who make browsers are considered all-important, and we are losing a lot of valuable input and a lot of valuable impact. If the Webizen program is done right, not only will it attract these developers as individuals, but it will start to open pathways to membership for their companies, their local organisations, universities, etc. by showing the value of participation. > 4) Looking at the individual goals, the question then becomes: > > 4a) Attract more stakeholders - hmm. Do we think that we will somehow > increase a sense of ownership by webheads, and if so, why and for what > purpose? Yes. Because they have an investment in the organisation, and can see that it is responsive to them (without simply being for sale - they are participants in a large established organisation and not everything they come up with will be as brilliant an idea as it seemed in the bar, just as we have all already learned). For the purpose of getting faster, and more diverse, deployment of our work in experimental phases, enabling us to find and fix more mistakes sooner, while building a good base of skilled implementors for the things that turn out to work well. > 4b) get closer linkages - are we really lacking in this area in a manner > that hurts the quality of our recommendations? Yep. > 4c) increase general public review - The director already welcomes > comments from anyone. What is the deficiency that we are trying to > overcome, and does it take a new category of participation or a simple > change to the review process? I agree that this isn't a particular problem, assuming we deal with the linkages and breadth of stakeholders. > 4d) provide a means for influence - Be careful what you wish for. Do we > really want more outside influence on the development of our > recommendations, and will such outside influence enhance or detract from > their quality and more importantly their adoption - especially by the > major players who are in reality the parties that drive widespread > adoption. Yes. In far too many cases, the influences in a given specification are a narrow subset of the peopel at a narrow subset of the major players. Balancing their input against that of smaller developers > 4e) information sharing - we have a publicly available website, publicly > available draft specifications at every step in the process, publicly > available comment mechanisms. How will the webizen program improve over > what we have? By getting an engaged audience. > 4f) Enhanced stewardship - Do we somehow believe that the current > membership and leadership is somehow deficient in its stewardship of the > web? Not really, although we could (always) do better. > Finally, we have a separate thread on the AC list around the Openness > and Transparency CG. Although there is some issue with the name - a > sentiment I don't share - Perhaps a CG is the real solution here (other > than the W3C desire for increased revenue from this program). The CG > could function as a webizen ecosystem, with leaders and followers who > could use the forum to express their ideas in whatever level of > formality they chose with minimal impact on staff. Wouldn't that be > sufficient as a mechanism to increase interaction, provide a sense of > participation, etc? I think the apparent mindshare in its intended audience suggests that no, that CG isn't a particularly useful forum for helping people not normally part of W3C to feel that they are begin engaged with better. This may change in the future, but I am not convinced that it is the solution we are looking for... cheers -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 23:13:09 UTC