Karl Dubost wrote:
Hi Bijan,
Le 25 févr. 2009 à 08:02, Bijan Parsia a écrit :
It doesn't seem to me that the W3C has an Audit Board which tries to
analyze failures and draw lessons from them. That could be a very
helpful thing.
Disclaimer: I have been working at W3C, as an employee, from 2000 to 2008.
The W3C doesn't have an audit board, because it has its full community:
The public, the members and the staff. And seriously, the Process
document and work practices have evolved depending on the pushes of the
community as large. The W3C is in perpetual evolution and that is
healthy and it learns from its mistakes.
I don't claim, it is perfect, but the claim above seems completely
unjustified.
This exchange puzzles me.
Both of you appear to agree that mistakes are made from time to time,
and that learning from them and evolving is a good thing.
Perhaps the issue is that Bijan suggested an Audit Board with a capital
"A" and a capital "B"? OK, perhaps that's unnecessary. Meanwhile, I've
yet to see anybody claim that sXBL was a success. Have we learned
everything we can learn from that experience?
Ian has described that experience in a way that I will characterize as a
death of a thousand cuts, and uses that to justify his swinging a
pendulum to a place that some may consider a bit too far the other way.
I personally don't want to relive sXBL, either directly by reliving the
experience or vicariously by participating in a postmortem. I merely
want to find the right balance for this working group.
- Sam Ruby
