Re: W3C communities and its modus operandi

On 25 Feb 2009, at 13:55, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Karl Dubost wrote:
>> Hi Bijan,
>> Le 25 févr. 2009 à 08:02, Bijan Parsia a écrit :
>>>  It doesn't seem to me that the W3C has an Audit Board which  
>>> tries to analyze failures and draw lessons from them. That could  
>>> be a very helpful thing.
>> Disclaimer: I have been working at W3C, as an employee,  from 2000  
>> to 2008.
>> The W3C doesn't have an audit board, because it has its full  
>> community: The public, the members and the staff.

Er...I don't see how that's remotely a replacement. An Audit Board  
would be charged with investigating specific incidents and situations  
and producing a report and making recommendations. Presumably, that  
would involve the full community. I don't think not having any such  
process is a good thing because, for example, it leads to hodgepodge  
accountibility and little investigation.

Finally, this case was member only, so the public has no idea and  
can't participate.

>> And seriously, the Process document and work practices have  
>> evolved depending on the pushes of the community as large.

Perhaps, but I don't see the relevant.

>> The W3C is in perpetual evolution and that is healthy and it  
>> learns from its mistakes.

I don't believe it does, or does so effectively.

>> I don't claim, it is perfect, but the claim above seems completely  
>> unjustified.

It's *completely unjustified* for me to suggest that an Audit Board  
could be a helpful thing? And that the W3C lacks one? The second is  
perfectly true (and I even stated it in a weasel way...it doesn't  
seem to me that there is one. Because I see nothing pointing to one.  
You might think that it wouldn't be a helpful thing, but I don't see  
how it is *completely unjustified* for me to think that it is.

> This exchange puzzles me.
>
> Both of you appear to agree that mistakes are made from time to  
> time, and that learning from them and evolving is a good thing.
>
> Perhaps the issue is that Bijan suggested an Audit Board with a  
> capital "A" and a capital "B"?  OK, perhaps that's unnecessary.

It may be, but again, how is it completely unjustified for me to  
suggest that having a group charged explicitly with investigating  
failures and trying to distill lessons might be a good thing?

I've been involved or observed several breakdowns of process,  
including some recent ones where people (e.g., on the chairs/AC list)  
have made serious accusations that were, afaict, completely not  
supported by the public record. I think an Audit Board, without a  
specific axe to grind, that set out to establish matters of fact,  
would be an excellent thing, frankly.

>   Meanwhile, I've yet to see anybody claim that sXBL was a  
> success.  Have we learned everything we can learn from that  
> experience?
>
> Ian has described that experience in a way that I will characterize  
> as a death of a thousand cuts,

Yes.

> and uses that to justify his swinging a pendulum to a place that  
> some may consider a bit too far the other way.

I agree that some may and do so consider.

> I personally don't want to relive sXBL, either directly by reliving  
> the experience or vicariously by participating in a postmortem.  I  
> merely want to find the right balance for this working group.

Sure. I'm sorry, did I cc you? If so, I didn't mean to. Per usual in  
these debates, I am merely trying to ensure that things which I can  
easily check get checked. I had no idea how to check Ian's claim  
until I had the pointer from Doug. I did check that claim, and  
reported on my check.

So, uhm, Karl, am I part of the "community" that does the auditing?  
I'd rather delegate that, if possible. I also find that people give  
me something of a hard time for it.

And I am part of the public and members that is, in this very  
message, trying to push the Process into having an Audit Board.  
Either this is ok, or it isn't and you are strongly suggesting it isn't.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 14:11:58 UTC