Ian,
How will you adduce failure & success?
On what basis did you consider that your proposed approach is suitable?
There is no mention of an external audit either in your response or
the links provided.
the links I provided give clear warnings about the potential and/or
actual abuse of power by corporations, and the need to enable the
internet for the individual citizen.
in your proposed community groups document, this retained statement
appears relevant:
'Community groups emphasize individual innovation and allow an easy
way for innovation from individuals to move to the "classic"
W3C standards process, which emphasizes broad consensus-building and
implementation among global stakeholders.'
as the current 'consensus' is measured by corporations, and this
appears to be being retained.
Meeting the needs of the wider public may not be an easy task,
whereas being led astray by corporations may well be trivial.
Where is the evidence, that an external audit would provide?
your supposed changes might be considered mere tokenism by some:
have you consulted widely to engage a broad audience of non-technical
users?
and identify what there needs and desires might be?
and what would encourage them to contribute their valuable time?
have you identified what percentage of contributed man-hours is a
success?
I for one remain to be convinced that this is suitable progress for
the past two years,
neither am I optimistic or enthusiastic about the direction taken.
Corporate growth is not an appropriate guide,
and in my view, the W3C mission statement needs to clearly identify
the end-user as the major stakeholder,
and ensure they are encouraged to contribute in meaningful ways that
will lead to successful outcomes that are externally audited.
kind regards
Jonathan Chetwynd
http://www.peepo.com
On 17 Jul 2011, at 19:00, Ian Jacobs wrote:
http://www.w3.org/QA/2011/06/beta_for_community_groups_unde.html
