- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:00:48 -0800
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: process-issues@w3.org, Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, www-archive@w3.org
On 25 Feb 2009, at 6:57 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > Hello, > > 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. Hi Bijan, I will forward your suggestion to the Advisory Board. _ Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 15:00:59 UTC