Re: fixing real problems that people encounter?

(Sorry all - mischievous little fingers pressed the send button when I put the phone down a second :) )

On 11/02/2011, at 7:00, Chris Beer <chris@e-beer.net.au> wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> On 11/02/2011, at 2:52, Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ian,
>> 
>> having taken the time to read your blog,
>> I agree that this does appear to be a belated start in the direction I proposed to you and Tim, some years ago,
>> hpwever,
>> 
>> it may not be sufficient to suggest "there are no fees to participate"
>> 
>> given the status of members, and W3C staff, whom are presumably paid in the main by someone  to participate;
>> it seems to me at least, fanciful to imagine that representative members of the general public, might volunteer through "Community Groups",
>> and if they were nonetheless to participate, hardly on even terms.
>> 
> 
> I think it is more than realistic to believe that many people will volunteer their time - both at the group level and personal. I only need to point to the open source development model for evidence in this regard. People like to give, and people like to connect.
> 
>> One may note that WAI IG has been seriously distorted over the  years by similar issues,
>> and a recent SVG IG  failed due to lack of participation.
> 
> Is it perhaps then not an issue of whether people are will to volunteer, but rather an issue of people and groups not being aware that they are all free to participate?
> 
> I must strongly disagree with the WAI example however - based purely in my own experience, the terms of involvement are very much equal - quite simply

if you have a good idea or comment, people listen. I tend to find that the issue is more that individuals may have the passion to participate, but not the technical expertise. 

Coming also from the e-Gov IG activity at W3, we can see an example where the WAI and SVG examples don't hold - most members are individuals / invited experts, and most members work in or around Government and so form a community of expertise that has resulted in a robust linked open data movement, and extensive work on the dcat data vocabulary.

> 
>> Most damning in my opinion, is the W3C obsession with the document model,

Yes - but that's just because we write documents. Kind makes sense.

>> and the related failure to recognise the popularity of games,
>> and their vital rôle in helping us model the complex data and threats we face in the modern world.
>> 
>> regards
>> 
>> Jonathan Chetwynd
>> http://www.peepo.com
>> 
>> 
>> On 1 Feb 2011, at 15:25, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>> 
>>> I most recently blogged about this in September:
>>> http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/09/one_web_day_and_w3c_community.html
>> 
>> 
>

Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 20:14:31 UTC