(Sorry all - mischievous little fingers pressed the send button when I put the phone down a second :) )
On 11/02/2011, at 7:00, Chris Beer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all > > On 11/02/2011, at 2:52, Jonathan Chetwynd <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ian, >> >> having taken the time to read your blog, >> I agree that this does appear to be a belated start in the direction I >> proposed to you and Tim, some years ago, >> hpwever, >> >> it may not be sufficient to suggest "there are no fees to participate" >> >> given the status of members, and W3C staff, whom are presumably paid in the >> main by someone to participate; >> it seems to me at least, fanciful to imagine that representative members of >> the general public, might volunteer through "Community Groups", >> and if they were nonetheless to participate, hardly on even terms. >> > > I think it is more than realistic to believe that many people will volunteer > their time - both at the group level and personal. I only need to point to > the open source development model for evidence in this regard. People like to > give, and people like to connect. > >> One may note that WAI IG has been seriously distorted over the years by >> similar issues, >> and a recent SVG IG failed due to lack of participation. > > Is it perhaps then not an issue of whether people are will to volunteer, but > rather an issue of people and groups not being aware that they are all free > to participate? > > I must strongly disagree with the WAI example however - based purely in my > own experience, the terms of involvement are very much equal - quite simply if you have a good idea or comment, people listen. I tend to find that the issue is more that individuals may have the passion to participate, but not the technical expertise. Coming also from the e-Gov IG activity at W3, we can see an example where the WAI and SVG examples don't hold - most members are individuals / invited experts, and most members work in or around Government and so form a community of expertise that has resulted in a robust linked open data movement, and extensive work on the dcat data vocabulary. > >> Most damning in my opinion, is the W3C obsession with the document model, Yes - but that's just because we write documents. Kind makes sense. >> and the related failure to recognise the popularity of games, >> and their vital rôle in helping us model the complex data and threats we >> face in the modern world. >> >> regards >> >> Jonathan Chetwynd >> http://www.peepo.com >> >> >> On 1 Feb 2011, at 15:25, Ian Jacobs wrote: >> >>> I most recently blogged about this in September: >>> http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/09/one_web_day_and_w3c_community.html >> >> >
