xml-dev - Re: standards body parallel

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

At 02:48 AM 10/14/00 +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>Good, next AC Meeting is soon I hope to see you there.

That'll take a lot more dollars coming in, but someday, perhaps.  

>Note that AC discussion are not susbtituable to WG discussion. If you
>limit your role to AC member instead of joining WG groups then you
>won't impact the substance of the specification, you may say I
>approve/disaprove such or such part but not change it. 
>Consensus is built in the WGs not at the AC level.

I wasn't planning to _limit_ my participation to the AC level - just to
make sure I participate at a level where governance issues _could_ get
discussed, should I participate.

>  It's not front door vs. back door, it's do you want to get the work
>to progress instead of merely judging from an outside view. Saying that
>Invited Experts have a back seat is simply not true. I strongly disagree !

It's not that they have a back seat - it's that they came in the back door.
 The front door requires payment, the back door is a convenient way to
pretend the payment rules don't exist.  The confidentiality rules in both
cases are unfortunate.

>> I strongly suggest that the W3C take a close look at its own process and
>> stop offering Invited Expert status as an _alternative_ to opening its own
>> process.
>
>  Some groups are publics, it's context dependant.

And, uh, how exactly is that justified?  Are protocols really that
different from schemas from CSS from Namespaces in XML?  Context?  Or people?

>> It's not an adequate answer, to put it bluntly.  There's no accountability
>> right now.  Results, yes.  Accountability?  Only to members.
>
>  As Jonathan said more than 450 member organisation have access,
>including a number of public research institutes with hundreds of people
>having access. It's not public but a lot of people can check.

That's still exactly what I said.  Accountable to members only, who aren't
allowed to talk about it.  A lot of people, all bound by the same vow of
silence.

>> In any event, I can't verify your claim against the
>> archives.  One of the few things Ronald Reagan ever said that I liked was
>> 'Trust but verify.'  I can't verify, so why should I trust?
>
>  The French in me would then say you cannot be sure of anything you
>have to trust something at some point. You may consider not trusting W3C
>staff or Members ... There is an awful lot of things that if considered
>quietly should not carry that much trust. For example you don't PGP sign
>your messages (nor do I but I sign my code !).

In cases where accountability matters, verification counts.  In this case,
verification counts.  Otherwise we're stuck in the same "I'm the W3C,
therefore I am not publicly accountable" cycle.  Sounds like Descartes, but
it's not.

>> The existence of back doors doesn't add any accountability to the process.
>
>  If you open the archives of the mailing-list then you also restrain
>how freely people feel about posting arguments on it. It's a trade off.

And the IETF now has people bitching because they're considering archiving
Internet Drafts.  Hiding bad ideas doesn't make the good ideas any better.
Showing off bad ideas may well illuminate why the good ideas are good.

If people are really that afraid to be embarrassed, I'd suggest there's
something deeply wrong with the climate in which these standards are built.
 I'm aware that it doesn't work across all cultures, but I think the main
barrier we're discussing here is Western corporate and academic culture.

To quote that Ronald Reagan fellow again:  "Tear down that wall."

Then maybe we can talk about the value of what lurks behind it, in a
serious way.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books