Re: Rebalancing How the Web is Built

Manu et.al.

What I hear in your proposal is a call for Inclusive Web Development.

Here's a curious thing...

I and some others on this list have been participating during the past
year and bit in the US Fed's "Faster Payments Task Force", and I reckon all
who have participated would agree with me that their process has been
remarkably inclusive. (Please correct that assessment, if anyone who's been
involved would disagree.) Yet I think in general perceptions, the US Fed is
not typically described as an inclusive sort of consortium.

Also, later this month the start-up that I lead, which is a
commercially-funded free/libre/source foundation, will be taking part in
the World Trade Organization's 2016 Public Forum where the theme is,
...wait for it: "Inclusive Trade"
https://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/public_forum16_e/public_forum16_e.htm
And yet the popular view of the WTO is not that it's particularly inclusive.

To determine if the W3C is perceived by a significant proportion of new
entrants to Web R&D as falling short on "inclusivity", I wonder if somebody
would set up a respectfully balanced survery with LimeSurvey or
SurveyMonkey or equivalent.

If such a sentiment that the W3C seriously lacks in terms of inclusivity is
significant by some reasonable metric, surely TBL himself ought to respond
directly to the issue, and at minimum request that staff *and W3C Members*
undertake a process entitled "Inclusive Web Standards".

Joseph Potvin
Mobile: 819-593-5983

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 09/11/2016 12:28 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
> > 1. Don't large W3C member firms often face the same frustrations with
> > other large competitor firms?
>
> Not often and if it does happen, it doesn't happen very publicly.
> Typically less is asked of large organizations trying to do something at
> W3C than small organizations. This may be because large organizations
> vet a lot of this behind the scenes and come into the process more
> prepared. Or it may be because larger organizations don't need to prove
> that they can make the solution work in the market as much as a group of
> smaller organizations because they can usually fall back to the "we have
> millions of customers, of course we can make the standard work in the
> market" argument.
>
> > Is this really a size issue ultimately, or a general governance
> > issue?
>
> It's a bit of both. It's a messy problem.
>
> > 2. Would your proposed approach have W3C funding implications, where
> >  some major donors find it less useful for constraining competition?
>
> Perhaps, but I think the larger organizations are more concerned about
> the high cost of failure at W3C (staffing costs) rather than the ability
> to constrain competition. I have had discussions with many of the
> Advisory Committee reps from the large organizations and their focus has
> always seemed to be on using W3C resources wisely.
>
> > And one tweak for consideration:
> >
> > RE: "Produce two implementations and a test suite."
> >
> > I'd suggest three, and on different platforms.
>
> The W3C requirements are two so I didn't want to raise the bar more than
> necessary. Also note that these implementations can be /very expensive/
> to implement and raising that particular bar would make it more
> difficult for small organizations to innovate.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Advancing the Web Payments HTTP API and Core Messages
> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/yes-to-http-api/
>
>