W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2009

Proposed Process Change

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:57:30 +0000
Message-Id: <0EF85802-AD1E-405F-9AA6-B8D7DC64EDF1@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
To: process-issues@w3.org, Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>

I think it could improve both the perceived and actual transparency  
and accountability of the W3C as a whole to have what I've  
tentatively called an "Audit Board". An Audit Board would be charged  
with investigating specific incidents and situations and producing a  
report and making recommendations. A key aspect would be clearly  
documenting facts to produce a common base of verifiable information  
that people can make judgments on.

I would hope that such a group would help mitigate some of the heat  
that arises as people involved in a FAIL situation recount what  
happened, esp. to make a new point. It would also provide a body of  
knowledge that e.g., chairs could draw on when coping with issues  
that arise in WGs.

There is a concern that such a group could either be a witch hunter's  
club, or be systematically unfair to certain people or positions. I  
can't really say anything against those concerns. No rule can rule  
out bad acting.

Even if not a board, some sort of report repository wherein things  
like Formal Objections can be gathered and analyzed would be, imho,  
helpful. At the moment there is a sea of data at the W3C about its  
history, but you have to do difficult and dedicated research to  
ferret it out. Some of it is hidden from the public and some of it is  
hidden from the members, which makes things even trickier.

Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 14:53:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:34 UTC