Re: Few comments on the webizen wiki

On Wed, 07 May 2014 16:51:38 +0200, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
> On 5/7/2014 10:40 AM, GALINDO Virginie wrote:

> Thanks for the input.  Comments below.

Ditto.

>> -About the package
>>
>> The fact that webizen would not attend the WG has its rationale. But
>> what about allowing an ermanent observer status. Meeting the WG
>> participants for a webizen may have a real value. I know that observer
>> status is a chair discretion, but here we may have a kind of priority
>> observer status.
>
> I'm reluctant to impinge on the authority of the Chair.  In general, it
> can be difficult to get Chairs who after all are volunteers.  I am
> reluctant to reduce their authority.  But certainly, if a Chair would
> like to give observer status, that is encouraged.

I think we should be clearer in the wiki (and subsequent marketing
material) about participation - that it is not a right, but that there are
many ways relevant individuals can help do the work of a WG.

I think we should also be clear that many chairs are likely to take being
a webizen as *some* evidence of understanding the requirements for
participating as an invited expert…

In any event, given a chair has the right to specifically exclude people
 from a group for failure to behave appropriately, I think there isn't much
impingement implied on the authority of chairs. In any event, chairs
relying a lot on some authority given from W3C, rather than respect from
their group for doing a fair job of running it, are often going to have a
bad time…

>> Note that OWASP is providing a mail address for their individual
>> members, this also could be a cool thing to provide:
>> geek@w3c-webizen.com <mailto:geek@w3c-webizen.com>

Maintaining a large-scale email system isn't really trivial. I'm not sure
the benefit is worth the cost.

>> -About the regional aspects
>>
>> I think that OWASP grid can be a good example. They have chapters, and
>> individual choose a chapter to be associated with. The rest of the
>> organization stay global, but it helps to build locally some active
>> community. W3C already has some offices, which may be good anchors, as
>> a beginning.
>
> I agree that there could be value in having better regional support.
> Currently, we talk about that vaguely - in terms of the possibility that
> in the future there could be regional voting.

I think mandating regional voting is a very bad idea. While it might be
the case that if we have a large bloc of Chinese webizens they often vote
for chinese candidates, restricting their vote in that way seems an
artificial curb on their right to support whatever and whoever they
prefer. (Having a voting system that lets them do this reasonably fairly
also seems important, as I have noted elsewhere).

> If you have specific ideas on how to get organized regionally from Day
> 1, I encourage you to edit them into the wiki.

>> -About the webizen AC definition
>>
>> "They may accept Member-confidential information, but may not
>> distribute Member-confidential information within their companies
>> (since their companies are not Members) or among Webizens (because
>> re-distribution to all Webizens means it is no longer in Member space)."
>>
>> While I understand the rationale, I don't see how this can happen in
>> practice. Can you remind me what is member-confidential information
>> today ? members details, some announcement in advance, what else ?
>
> There are numerous mailing lists and certain Working Groups that operate
> in Member space.  Typically these mailing lists have a "member" prefix,
> although there are a few exceptions (notably w3c-ac-forum).  Our
> commitment to the Membership is that this information is not public.
> This allows Members to express points of view that (for example) they
> would not like attributed to them in the public press.  I would not like
> to remove that commitment to Members.

Agreed. That said, I think there is a strong case for actively committing
to providing questions for survey to the webizens, under a condition of
member-confidentiality. Equally, I would suggest that how webizen reps
voted should be information available to the webizens, probably under the
same conditions.

Member-confidential means information is only available to (tens of?)
thousands, and I rather suspect that people are still slightly wary of
what they say in such cases. W3C confidentiality levels are remarkably
well-respected, but there are leaks.

> Today, most Working Groups operate in public, but there are some who
> prefer that their deliberations remain in Member space.

There are also, I think, some social advantages in giving webizens some
access to information that is considered confidential (even if it isn't
*very confidential*), in terms of building a real relationship and respect.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
         chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Sunday, 11 May 2014 23:32:07 UTC