Hello,
I think it could improve both the perceived and actual transparency
and accountability of the W3C as a whole to have what I've
tentatively called an "Audit Board". An Audit Board would be charged
with investigating specific incidents and situations and producing a
report and making recommendations. A key aspect would be clearly
documenting facts to produce a common base of verifiable information
that people can make judgments on.
I would hope that such a group would help mitigate some of the heat
that arises as people involved in a FAIL situation recount what
happened, esp. to make a new point. It would also provide a body of
knowledge that e.g., chairs could draw on when coping with issues
that arise in WGs.
There is a concern that such a group could either be a witch hunter's
club, or be systematically unfair to certain people or positions. I
can't really say anything against those concerns. No rule can rule
out bad acting.
Even if not a board, some sort of report repository wherein things
like Formal Objections can be gathered and analyzed would be, imho,
helpful. At the moment there is a sea of data at the W3C about its
history, but you have to do difficult and dedicated research to
ferret it out. Some of it is hidden from the public and some of it is
hidden from the members, which makes things even trickier.
Cheers,
Bijan.
- Proposed Process Change Bijan Parsia
-
