xml-dev - Re: standards body parallel

[Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@qub.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@rpbourret.com>

> Actually, being afraid of being embarrassed (especially in public) is
> extremely common in Western and corporate culture. 

...

> I have mixed feelings about 100% closed WGs. On the one hand, I'd love
> to have more access to WG members and be able to ask, why was this done
> this way? Did you consider this? That would allow me to give better
> feedback. (Mailing lists are sometimes responsive, sometimes not.)
> 
> On the other hand, I certainly understand the reasons behind them.

If the only reason why WGs are closed is that people don't want 
to show their mistakes ( this is very understandable ), I think 
this problem has some easy solution. 

For example:

Make monthly anonymous digests of closed mailing lists, 
removing the "From:" field and all the names mentioned in the body
and then publish the digest.

If  the real purpose of closing the rationale / discussions behind 
W3C papers is that simple - I volunteer to write the appropriate 
perl script.

If the real purpose is that 'outer space' better not to know 
about the way W3C produces the 'specifications' - well, 
perl script is not a solution of course.

The 'softer' solution could be to ask WGs ( or some 
'invited' people ) to publish a 'hand-made' monthly digests 
( like XML Deviant at xml.com does for 'opened lists - 
I like it. It is very politically correct but informative ;-).

I think that many people who are currently bashing W3C 
will be glad to volunteer and will do a good job on such a 
digesting.

Rgds.Paul.

PS. I'm of course not talking about myself for this digesting 
activity, not only because of my terrible English, but 
also because I think my digests will be something like :  
"In the attempt of saving some legacy papers, 
the stuff discussed on this WG during this month has 
not too much sense..." ;-) Or something like that ;-)

PPS. 

Let's just face it. What do we *really* have in 'standard'
shape except the XML spec ?  Nothing. Almost nothing.

This situation was acceptable 2 years ago. Even 
Silicon Valley startups ( which are known for wasting 
time and money for years with no practical results ) have 
to make a deadlines sometimes.

I think many people will be glad to help W3C. Rejecting 
those ( free ) resources for years in the situation when 
deadlines keep failing - isn't it strange ?