- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 21:38:17 +0900
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- CC: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Hello Noah, On 2014/07/13 00:08, Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > 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. Having always participated informally, and not even assuming that I could get my employer (an university like in your case) to get to support my official contribution, I very much understand your argument. However, my guess would be that making sure that TAG participants come from a variety of organizations would give a variety of organizations a one-time chance to ask the above questions, which I'd consider a good thing. Regards, Martin.
Received on Sunday, 13 July 2014 12:39:04 UTC