[wbs] response to 'Making W3C the place for new Web standards'

The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Making W3C the
place for new Web standards' (public) for Laurent Lefort.



---------------------------------
About You
----
Please check all that apply to let us know about your primary roles with
respect to W3C work.


 * [x] application developer
 * [ ] web designer
 * [ ] browser or other software developer
 * [x] standards professional
 * [x] current or former incubator group chair
 * [x] other (see below)

Other role not listed above: 
W3C Australia Office staff




---------------------------------
W3C as Host for New Work
----
Do you think W3C would be an appropriate host for this work? Please use
the comment box for any additional detail, such as why you think W3C would
make an appropriate host, why it would not, what we should change to make
W3C a more interesting option, why you think another organization would be
a better fit, etc.


 * ( ) Yes
 * (x) No

Additional detail: 
There is a need for a neutral ground to allow the involvement of other
SDOs such as OGC, OASIS, OMG and of communities  outside W3C.




---------------------------------
Elements of W3C Offering
----
Please rank the importance of the following elements for the sort of work
or work environment you want. Use the comment field for other important
elements.

 * Importance of royalty-free patent policy for pre-standards documents: [
5 +++++ ] 
 * Importance of open document license: [ 6 ++++++ ] 
 * Importance of individual (not organizational) licensing and other
commitments: [ No opinion ] 
 * Importance of zero (or nominal) fee to participate: [ 4 ++++ ] 
 * Importance of easy transition to the W3C Recommendation Track: [ 4 ++++
] 
 * Importance of connectivity with significant players in industry,
research, standards, government (while maintaining vendor neutrality): [ 7 
+++++++ (highest) ] 
 * Importance of technical review by broader community: [ 5 +++++ ] 
 * Importance of W3C technical staff to help mentor, connect, and
facilitate: [ 6 ++++++ ] 
 * Importance of communications and marketing support from W3C staff: [ 4
++++ ] 
 * Importance of W3C brand for your customers or audience: [ 6 ++++++ ] 

Other important components to an offering that would interest you: 
Possibility to host W3C fellows.

Better information on which tools serve (or are compliant with) which
standards.





---------------------------------
Meetings and communications
----
Please rank the importance of the following meeting and communications
options. A low value means "don't like or want" a high value means "this is
important to the way I work". Please use the comment space for additional
detail or other important meeting and communications options. 

 * Importance of teleconferences: [ 5 +++++ ] 
 * Importance of face-to-face meetings (say, 2-3 annually): [ 7  +++++++
(highest) ] 
 * Importance of video conferences: [ 5 +++++ ] 
 * Importance of mailing lists (spam-controlled): [ 4 ++++ ] 
 * Importance of irc: [ 5 +++++ ] 
 * Importance of chat system(s) other than IRC (details in comment box): [
7  +++++++ (highest) ] 
 * Importance of blog: [ 4 ++++ ] 
 * Importance of microblog: [ 5 +++++ ] 
 * Importance of wiki: [ 7  +++++++ (highest) ] 
 * Importance of rss or atom feeds: [ 4 ++++ ] 
 * Importance of calendar feeds: [ 4 ++++ ] 

Additional detail or other important meeting and communications options: 
Core issue for Australia: difficulty to assist face-to-face meetings and
even teleconferences.

The current communication scheme is far too dependent on the level of
commitment (and on the availability) of the AC representative to do
W3C-related work. It is no longer adapated to the scale of W3C in terms of
number of working groups to follow and to the organisational structure of
some members (especially multinationals with multiple sites engaged in
W3C).




---------------------------------
Additional Infrastructure
----
Beyond the communications tools listed above, what infrastructure services
do you expect while doing your work? Please rank the importance of the
following items, and if you have used the W3C infrastructure, let us know
your level of satisfaction.

If there are other important elements of infrastructure not listed here,
please let us know in the comment box below.
* ability to publish on w3.org
   Importance: [ 6 ++++++ ]  | Satisfaction: [ 4 ++++ ]  | 
* issue / action tracking
   Importance: [ 5 +++++ ]  | Satisfaction: [ 4 ++++ ]  | 
* irc bots for connectivity with bridge, minutes, issue tracker
   Importance: [ 5 +++++ ]  | Satisfaction: [ 5 +++++ ]  | 
* version control system (cvs, mercurial)
   Importance: [ 4 ++++ ]  | Satisfaction: [ Didn't know ]  | 
* tool for accepting review comments
   Importance: [ 7  +++++++ (highest) ]  | Satisfaction: [ Didn't know ] 
| 
* tool for managing how review comments have been handled
   Importance: [ 7  +++++++ (highest) ]  | Satisfaction: [ Didn't know ] 
| 
* test harness
   Importance: [ No opinion ]  | Satisfaction: [ No opinion ]  | 

Additional infrastructure: 
One important part of the W3C infrastructure is the tool used to manage
the access rights of working groups participants: with the push to more
openess of W3C, some re-thinking has to be done to handle contributions
from the outside of W3C with an admin workload which is comparable to what
can be done outside W3C.  

Update the W3C Process to allow individuals or for organisations to
declare their support to some W3C-led activities through a "follower"
status.

The work done by W3C to archive (preserve) all the technical exchanges is
also important. 


These answers were last modified on 12 July 2010 at 04:53:39 U.T.C.
by Laurent Lefort

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/newstd2/ until 2010-11-15.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer

Received on Monday, 12 July 2010 04:55:04 UTC