+1 Christopher Ferris IBM Distinguished Engineer CTO Cloud Interoperability @christo4ferris 508-667-0402 http://thoughtsoncloud.com/author/cferris/ > On Jul 12, 2014, at 11:09 AM, "Noah Mendelsohn" <nrm@arcanedomain.com> wrote: > > On 7/12/2014 12:50 AM, David Booth wrote: > > > > No matter how well-meaning one is, it simply is not possible to maintain > > neutrality (or the appearance thereof) when one's food and mortgage are > > paid by one's employer. > > David, I think you go too far there. Though I'm sure it's unintentional, > this is really a slight to many people who on various W3C committees have > done just that, or at least come very close. More enlightened employers and > employees understand that, at least for some companies, promoting the long > term health of the Web has more business value than advantaging some > particular corporate product or feature. In such cases, the feeling of > conflict goes way down. > > Furthermore, and I suspect at the core of Marcos' concerns: even > enlightened and well-intentioned bureaucracies tend to more easily > recognize the value of, and plan for, formally committed employee > activities. Joining a committee gives an organization a one-time chance to > ask the questions: is this what we want (e.g. Marcos) to do? Are we > committed to supporting (him) with travel money and work time? When that > same employee is making that same contribution more informally, the > organization has a less clear opportunity to buy into that commitment. I > saw this at IBM all the time, and indeed I see it now: when I was > officially chair of the TAG, Tufts University (my current employer) easily > understood my contribution. If I tell them I participate in discussions > like this to continue to help the W3C they tend to ask "but what are you > really doing?". > > In short, there are good and understandable reasons why contributing to the > TAG informally can be harder than formally participating as a TAG member. > > Noah >
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2014 19:08:47 UTC