On 17 Jul 2011, at 3:12 PM, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote: > Ian, > > How will you adduce failure & success? > On what basis did you consider that your proposed approach is suitable?
We put together a task force [1] that came up with a proposal. We will gauge success first in terms of participation. [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Newstd > There is no mention of an external audit either in your response or the links > provided. We spoke with lots of people in and outside W3C to shape the proposal. We did not do a formal audit of the existing process, but people's input was certainly driven in many cases by their experience with the process. > > 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. The community group process will open participation to more people. W3C is pursing other avenues to promote inclusion as well; see our public documentation of priorities and milestones in 2011: http://www.w3.org/2011/01/w3c2011.html Ian > > > 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 > > -- Ian Jacobs ([email protected]) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
