xml-dev - RE: sunshine and standards development

[Bill dehOra <wdehora@cromwellmedia.co.uk>]

>My personal biggest beef, as with many others I gather, is the
>confidentiality policy. It should be recognized that there are 
>alternatives
>to complete openness and complete closedness. The current 
>policy is just
>stupid. Sorry, but I've never heard anything approaching a rational
>explanation for why a W3C member can't discuss a technical 
>detail with a
>knowledgeable non-member. This is to the detriment not only of 
>the W3C, but
>of Internet users in general. And this is quite a large group 
>to let down.

If I may barge in on this,

The W3C is funded by self-interested entities. If these entities are basing
business strategy on the outcomes of the W3C's end-products (normative
recommendations) and are arguing their case technically and strategically,
and assuming (as I do) that are no technological motives for technology then
it's a reasonable act of self-interest for them to ask for non-disclosure. 

Simply, the internet is not and never has been, free. 

There will always be problems between self-interested parties arguing over
forms of property. It's not something you can make go away.The idea is to
minimise the damage that can result. Even a highly open body, the Apache
Software Foundation, has rubbed shoulders with this in the last 12 months.
All consortia do. In this respect, the W3C is a roaring success.

The primary problem of product generation in the W3C is not disclosure or
corporate self-interest, or even bloat. It seems in my mind to be the lack
of coordination among working groups, which can lead to mutually
inconsistent recommendations on occasion. That is a special and insidious
form of complexity that no-one realy wants. If anyone has good ideas about
enhancing workflow within the W3C (a globally distributed organisation, or,
a collective intranet), that would be a valuable thread of conversation from
which we might all benefit.

-Bill de hÓra