Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, Daniel.Veillard@w3.org
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:28:38 -0400
Title: RE: standards body parallel
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> If I come into the W3C in the future, it'll be through
> the front door, not via Invited Expert status, and I'll
> be occupying the Advisory Committee seat.
You would be most welcome, Simon. And I'd love to work with you on a Working Group. I respect your expertise.
> There's no accountability right now. Results, yes.
> Accountability? Only to members.
All W3C standards are published for public review before they proceed to become recommendations, and this public review is taken seriously. The W3C is also quite interested in promoting open source implementations. I think that it is very important to have our technical content reviewed.
On the other hand, I don't know that asking XML-DEV to audit our internal political structure and mailing list archives would serve any purpose.
There may be good reasons for less confidentiality, but confidentiality is not inherently evil. The W3C is a member organization. It is accountable to its 466 members, who are cooperating to create standards. These standards are also made available to the general public.
The United Nations does not make all of its internal correspondence available to the general public either. Nor do most charitable institutions, or most corporations. If a corporation brings in an external group to perform an audit, it is not usually a public mailing list. You imply that confidentially is inherently evil. I just don't believe that.