- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:06:13 -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 8:32 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > On 25 Feb 2009, at 15:32, Ian Jacobs wrote: > >> 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. >> >> Bijan, >> >> Can you provide more information about the situation(s) that led to >> this proposal? Feel free to contact me offlist. > > The immediate impetus was this email: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Feb/0119.html > I first aired the idea in: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Feb/0120.html > > I don't know it has to be an AB per se...perhaps we have too many > groups :) I just find myself doing list forensics a bunch these days > and wish that the body of knowledge of dysfunction and how to deal > with it were systematized in a best practices document (with > supporting cases). We have a place for that sort of information: the chairs' guide. If you wish to write down your experience / observations somewhere and you wish to share it, I can link to it. _ Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:06:23 UTC