W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Making W3C the place for new Web standards

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: www-archive@w3.org

This questionnaire was open from 2010-06-22 to 2010-11-15.

91 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

About You
Activities Needing a Host
W3C as Host for New Work
Elements of W3C Offering
Meetings and communications
Additional Infrastructure
How Would You (re)Design the Incubator Activity?

1. About You

summary | by responder | by choice

Please check all that apply to let us know about your primary roles with respect to W3C work.

Choice	All responders
application developer	48
web designer	45
browser or other software developer	23
standards professional	30
current or former incubator group chair	10
other (see below)	27

Details

Responder	About You	Other role not listed above
Ken Laskey	standards professional current or former incubator group chair other (see below)	former AB
Ashok Malhotra	standards professional current or former incubator group chair
Toby Inkster	application developer web designer browser or other software developer other (see below)	Invited expert on SWXG, RDFa WG and HTMLWG.
Marc Schröder	current or former incubator group chair
Jeremias Märki	application developer browser or other software developer	Commentor on XSL-FO and SVG.
Raphaël Troncy	current or former incubator group chair
Peter Keane	application developer
Gregg Kellogg	application developer standards professional	TWG Chair, Connected Media Experience
Stephan Wenger	standards professional
Shawn Medero	application developer web designer
Steve Repetti	application developer web designer browser or other software developer current or former incubator group chair other (see below)	Board Member, Vice-chair, Data Portability; Member Open Web Foundation; Member Ope Ajax Alliance
Brian McCallister	application developer browser or other software developer	Director of the Apache Software Foundation
Luc Maisonobe	application developer	involved in software maintenance for very long term (> 30 years) life critical systems
James (Jim) Caruso	other (see below)	Business owner, Web user, and advocate for W3C and other Web standards.
Antoine Isaac	current or former incubator group chair
David Storey	web designer browser or other software developer standards professional
Max Harmony	web designer
Chris Cressman	application developer web designer
trehet yves	standards professional other (see below)	cross browser rendering
Michael Davies	other (see below)	Was briefly on the WCAG2 Working Group to work on JavaScript accessibility before that got descoped.
Xavier Lacot	application developer browser or other software developer standards professional other (see below)	* technology evangelist * Recommandations translator
Jessica Cave	web designer
Shanmuga Venkatesh K	other (see below)	Researcher on Semantic technologies
Claude Needham	web designer
Paul Scott	application developer web designer browser or other software developer current or former incubator group chair
Vladimir Kirov	web designer standards professional
Chris Johnson	application developer web designer
Dejan Kozina	application developer web designer
Jeremie Patonnier	web designer
Smith Russell	web designer
Karl Dubost	standards professional other (see below)	Director of technologis
John Drinkwater	application developer browser or other software developer
Daniel Lohse	application developer web designer
Frank van Harmelen	other (see below)	researcher
Manu Sporny	application developer browser or other software developer standards professional
Jeulin Olivier	application developer
Chris Prather	application developer web designer
Kimberly Blessing	application developer standards professional
VS Jonathon	application developer web designer standards professional
laurel mitro	application developer web designer
Mike Rankin	application developer
Copeland Bryan	application developer browser or other software developer standards professional
Adrian Casillas	web designer
Xi Bai	application developer
David Bromage	standards professional
Gary Miller	web designer	Auditing websites for conformance to WAI's WCAG. Helping other designers/developers to appreciate the importance of standards and accessibility.
Jeff Van Campen	application developer other (see below)	UX Designer. Standards-related event organizer (London Web Standards)
Jonny Axelsson	application developer browser or other software developer standards professional
Jamie Curle	application developer web designer
Robin Berjon	application developer web designer browser or other software developer standards professional
Toshiyuki KAMADA
Chris Mckee	application developer web designer standards professional
Micah Herstand	other (see below)	Semantic Web/Linked Data researcher
Myles Stuart	application developer standards professional
Andy Mabbett	web designer
Sorin Stefan	web designer other (see below)	user experience designer
Shelley Powers	application developer web designer other (see below)	Author
Anthony Bryan	browser or other software developer standards professional	I've authored/edited a few RFCs and work on download related software.
Jonnatan Cordero	application developer web designer
James Salsman	application developer web designer browser or other software developer standards professional other (see below)	Invited expert.
Petrák Josef	application developer web designer other (see below)	web standards translator
Javier de la Cueva	other (see below)	Invited expert e-Government
Lee Feigenbaum	application developer browser or other software developer other (see below)	Working Group chair.
Gifford Mike	web designer
Susan Grossman	web designer standards professional	508/accessibility Consultant
Shane McCarron	application developer web designer browser or other software developer standards professional
Amit Sheth	current or former incubator group chair other (see below)	research that have lead to two W3C member submissions and a recommendation
Ulrich Nicolas Lissé	browser or other software developer standards professional
Theresa O'Connor	application developer web designer
Jérémie Bouillon	web designer standards professional
Enrico Lamperti	application developer web designer
Liz Peetz	web designer
Brian Peterson	application developer web designer browser or other software developer standards professional
Victoria Wagman	web designer	Website-idéa developer
Ron Sidell	web designer standards professional other (see below)	Linux distro developer
Krzysztof Maczyński	application developer browser or other software developer other (see below)	trainer
Robert Craven	other (see below)	I have a web site and am reading and learning.
Jonathan Thorpe	application developer web designer
Laurent Lefort	application developer standards professional current or former incubator group chair other (see below)	W3C Australia Office staff
Andrea Brenci	application developer web designer
Vincent Desbarres	web designer
Kai Sommer	web designer other (see below)	student of information sciences
Z Jan
Christian Pieczewski	application developer
David O'Neill	application developer browser or other software developer standards professional
Adam Retter	application developer browser or other software developer
Dick Hardt	application developer web designer browser or other software developer standards professional current or former incubator group chair
Sören Preibusch	other (see below)	researcher
Christophe Strobbe	other (see below)	researcher
Chris Beer	web designer standards professional other (see below)	Government Web Publishing + Communications Delivery W3 e-Gov IG Invited Expert (Public Member)
Nathan Rixham	application developer browser or other software developer

View by choice

Choice	Responders
application developer	Toby Inkster Jeremias Märki Peter Keane Gregg Kellogg Shawn Medero Steve Repetti Brian McCallister Luc Maisonobe Chris Cressman Xavier Lacot Paul Scott Chris Johnson Dejan Kozina John Drinkwater Daniel Lohse Manu Sporny Jeulin Olivier Chris Prather Kimberly Blessing VS Jonathon laurel mitro Mike Rankin Copeland Bryan Xi Bai Jeff Van Campen Jonny Axelsson Jamie Curle Robin Berjon Chris Mckee Myles Stuart Shelley Powers Jonnatan Cordero James Salsman Petrák Josef Lee Feigenbaum Shane McCarron Theresa O'Connor Enrico Lamperti Brian Peterson Krzysztof Maczyński Jonathan Thorpe Laurent Lefort Andrea Brenci Christian Pieczewski David O'Neill Adam Retter Dick Hardt Nathan Rixham
web designer	Toby Inkster Shawn Medero Steve Repetti David Storey Max Harmony Chris Cressman Jessica Cave Claude Needham Paul Scott Vladimir Kirov Chris Johnson Dejan Kozina Jeremie Patonnier Smith Russell Daniel Lohse Chris Prather VS Jonathon laurel mitro Adrian Casillas Gary Miller Jamie Curle Robin Berjon Chris Mckee Andy Mabbett Sorin Stefan Shelley Powers Jonnatan Cordero James Salsman Petrák Josef Gifford Mike Susan Grossman Shane McCarron Theresa O'Connor Jérémie Bouillon Enrico Lamperti Liz Peetz Brian Peterson Victoria Wagman Ron Sidell Jonathan Thorpe Andrea Brenci Vincent Desbarres Kai Sommer Dick Hardt Chris Beer
browser or other software developer	Toby Inkster Jeremias Märki Steve Repetti Brian McCallister David Storey Xavier Lacot Paul Scott John Drinkwater Manu Sporny Copeland Bryan Jonny Axelsson Robin Berjon Anthony Bryan James Salsman Lee Feigenbaum Shane McCarron Ulrich Nicolas Lissé Brian Peterson Krzysztof Maczyński David O'Neill Adam Retter Dick Hardt Nathan Rixham
standards professional	Ken Laskey Ashok Malhotra Gregg Kellogg Stephan Wenger David Storey trehet yves Xavier Lacot Vladimir Kirov Karl Dubost Manu Sporny Kimberly Blessing VS Jonathon Copeland Bryan David Bromage Jonny Axelsson Robin Berjon Chris Mckee Myles Stuart Anthony Bryan James Salsman Susan Grossman Shane McCarron Ulrich Nicolas Lissé Jérémie Bouillon Brian Peterson Ron Sidell Laurent Lefort David O'Neill Dick Hardt Chris Beer
current or former incubator group chair	Ken Laskey Ashok Malhotra Marc Schröder Raphaël Troncy Steve Repetti Antoine Isaac Paul Scott Amit Sheth Laurent Lefort Dick Hardt
other (see below)	Ken Laskey Toby Inkster Steve Repetti James (Jim) Caruso trehet yves Michael Davies Xavier Lacot Shanmuga Venkatesh K Karl Dubost Frank van Harmelen Jeff Van Campen Micah Herstand Sorin Stefan Shelley Powers James Salsman Petrák Josef Javier de la Cueva Lee Feigenbaum Amit Sheth Ron Sidell Krzysztof Maczyński Robert Craven Laurent Lefort Kai Sommer Sören Preibusch Christophe Strobbe Chris Beer

2. Activities Needing a Host

Do you know of a current Web-related activities that might benefit from a host for pre-standardization work or standardization?

Details

Responder	Activities in search of a host
Ken Laskey	1. URW3 XG participants have talked about a follow-on XG but haven't managed to get effort organized. 2. Possible work on description framework, e.g. service description. This would leverage semantics work but not explicitly built on Semantic Web technology. (Answers to following questions are in context of how I think community interested in this work would prioritize.)
Ashok Malhotra
Toby Inkster	FOAF+SSL
Marc Schröder	Behavior Markup Language (BML) spec in the SAIBA initiative (http://wiki.mindmakers.org/projects:BML:main). They want to standardise the markup for controlling virtual agents.
Jeremias Märki
Raphaël Troncy
Peter Keane	JSON serialization of RDF/LinkedData
Gregg Kellogg
Stephan Wenger	I have heard of a number of community driven initiatives, but I'm not personally part of any of those, so I leave it to people more involved to comment.
Shawn Medero	1. A lot of the material from the http://openwebfoundation.org/ seems like it would be better suited at the W3C instead "yet another standards body". 2. Facebook's FBML need more review from standards experts before it was unleashed in the wild. FBML is a strange mix of HTML 4 and XHTML 1 (as XML) markup that would "validate" as neither at this point. Sadly, there's quite a bit of FBML deployed into HTML-as-she-spoke and I don't mean of the type where it is injected into the DOM via JavaScript. I see quite a bit of it in content served from non-Facebook domains before client-side scripting would've been invoked. I don't think FBML itself as a good candidate for hosting but "how to" extend HTML5 should be a priority for the W3C as well providing a forum/sandbox/test suites/validation services for groups to come together and hammer out extensions in a civilized and hopefully sane manner. 3. JavaScript/DOM Touch APIs - Browser vendors are now moving at breakneck speed to produce multi-touch interfaces and creating their own Touch events. How should Touch APIs interact with the W3C Widgets work? HTML5? Canvas? SVG?
Steve Repetti	OpenWeb, OpenAjax, Twillium
Brian McCallister	Stomp messaging protocol specification
Luc Maisonobe
James (Jim) Caruso	Open Web and Open Standards efforts in general
Antoine Isaac
David Storey
Max Harmony
Chris Cressman
trehet yves	web tester ?
Michael Davies	Activitystrea.ms and Graph based APIs (like Facebook OpenGraph)
Xavier Lacot	* Working groups discussions, * implementation meetups, * etc would sure benefit frm WG dicussions. About the technologies, the industry is talking a lot about HTML5; lots of our clients are interested and want to switch as fast as possible (ie. as fast as the technology is ready to use). We are also very keen on Semantic Web - microformats, of course, but also OWL, RDF, RDFa, content semantization,
Jessica Cave
Shanmuga Venkatesh K	Microformats, EU projects on semantic technologies.
Claude Needham
Paul Scott
Vladimir Kirov
Chris Johnson
Dejan Kozina
Jeremie Patonnier	There's a need for a place to aggregate et normalize all the initiatives relatives to Social social interaction (Facebook API vs. Twitter API vs. Google Open Social API vs. Diaspora vs. etc.)
Smith Russell
Karl Dubost	all activities around social networking but only if those can move quickly, the pace of changes in this area is daunting. Things around templating languages for the Web in CMS. It already has a host but would benefit to be done at W3C: epub standardization. The border between epub readers and browsers is collapsing.
John Drinkwater	Metalink specification
Daniel Lohse
Frank van Harmelen	very disconnected bits of research about trust on the web
Manu Sporny	http://payswarm.com/ http://esw.w3.org/WebID
Jeulin Olivier
Chris Prather
Kimberly Blessing	Some large companies would like to see Microformats and the HTTP Archive specification "owned" by a standards body; not because these efforts aren't working as currently organized, but because those companies are unwilling to adopt work not being conducted by a standards body.
VS Jonathon
laurel mitro
Mike Rankin
Copeland Bryan	OpenRecommender - An initiative to build a large-scale open source Recommendation Engine. http://openrecommender.org
Adrian Casillas
Xi Bai
David Bromage	Australian Semantic Web interest groups developing standards and models to support government, academic and non-profit service delivery.
Gary Miller
Jeff Van Campen
Jonny Axelsson
Jamie Curle
Robin Berjon	CommonJS Micropayment Web-based P2P
Toshiyuki KAMADA
Chris Mckee
Micah Herstand	Augmented Reality, Location-Based check-in services, video-chatting, IM (probably has one, but it'd be nice if Skype/iChat/gChat/FBChat/etc. had some sort of linked nature. I suppose this may be more up to the developers than a standards body but would be interested to see if standards could help bring together these different communications media)
Myles Stuart
Andy Mabbett	Developing microformats
Sorin Stefan
Shelley Powers
Anthony Bryan	No
Jonnatan Cordero
James Salsman	Formalizing internet service quality metrics and flags for multi-homing, including privacy, network neutrality, service cost, bandwidth, round trip time, and related concerns.
Petrák Josef
Javier de la Cueva	http://purl.org/derecho/vocabulario# might benefit from a host.
Lee Feigenbaum
Gifford Mike	More api's for validation, particularly for accessibility.
Susan Grossman
Shane McCarron
Amit Sheth
Ulrich Nicolas Lissé
Theresa O'Connor
Jérémie Bouillon
Enrico Lamperti
Liz Peetz
Brian Peterson
Victoria Wagman	Not really clear on what you're asking for honestly
Ron Sidell
Krzysztof Maczyński	compound documents and generic mechanisms supporting their processing in user agents, both declaratively (applying the principle of least power) and with optional scripting (and yes, I believe no central piece in sight is able to complete this puzzle except for XHTML with namespaces)
Robert Craven
Jonathan Thorpe
Laurent Lefort	Linking Open Standards activity: standard development organisations need new solutions to bridge standards developed independently and to leverage Semantic Web technologies: - guidelines and tools to mix XML-based and RDF-based solutions - guidelines and tools to mix model-based software engineering and ontology engineering
Andrea Brenci
Vincent Desbarres
Kai Sommer	formats and standards for Linked (Open) Data and the Semantic Web, microformats
Z Jan
Christian Pieczewski
David O'Neill	Cell Phone Application Accessibility
Adam Retter	EXPath/EXQuery
Dick Hardt	identity related standards, specifically: user interactions with web apps
Sören Preibusch
Christophe Strobbe	Unified Web Evaluation Methodology (UWEM) for evaluating web accessibility: http://www.wabcluster.org/uwem1_2/
Chris Beer	Government and not-for-profit metadata, linked data, structured data and/or SemWeb activities. dCat (Data Catalogue standard from DERI used by data.gov.*)
Nathan Rixham	I would suggest WebGL and Common.js WebGL: there is an ever increasing overlap between W3C webapps WG and HTML5 WG with the WebGL effort, to the point that some webapps specifications rely on WebGL specified types such as TypedArray, not only would it be good to have these under the banner of W3C (thus encompassing all base datatypes needed on the web and in implementations) but also to cover the security W3C provides from the royalty free and patent disclosure side of things (since new webapps specifications are dependant on them), additionally WebGL very much compliments the canvas element and W3C seems a natural home for this, at the least though certainly covering the TypedArrays specification. Common.js: As javascript moves in to the role of universal syntax, many server side implementations are attempting to standardise the modules needed on the server side, many of these compliment and in some cases conflict/compete with the W3Cs work, particularly (again) around the webapps specifications, which are generic enough to work on both client and server side - I believe pulling the common.js community in to W3C would be beneficial all round and bring further momentum to W3C from an ever evolving community which crosses paths with web related specs at many points (given that js is very much the scripting language of the web). [just cam back to this as a co-worker literally just asked me 'Nathan does the w3c have a module specification for js?' which is my point in case] There are other web-related activities which I can't pin to a certain name or group of people, but would certainly benefit from standardization, simple things such as standardized UI icons for html elements within html editors, common icons for lists, bold, italic etc exist, but there is no standardized library which is a major omission from the web imho.

Do you think W3C would be an appropriate host for this work? Please use the comment box for any additional detail, such as why you think W3C would make an appropriate host, why it would not, what we should change to make W3C a more interesting option, why you think another organization would be a better fit, etc.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
yes	43
no	13

Details

Responder	W3C as Host for New Work	Additional detail
Ken Laskey	yes	yes: XG for explicitly developing ideas in an open forum and not rushing to a standard. glitch: unwieldy to sign up large number of nonmembers
Ashok Malhotra
Toby Inkster	no	Many of the key people in the FOAF+SSL community (implementors, etc) are not currently employees of W3C member companies.
Marc Schröder	yes	The key issue in my mind is to what extent W3C wants to be the host for initiatives coming from the scientific research community. Often these are seen as half-baked, exceedingly complex approaches with unclear perspectives for commercial exploitation. On the other hand, they are often truly innovative, and if the technology becomes mature enough for the market, then an early W3C involvement in defining a standard would make a real contribution to interoperability. My feeling is that XGs could be the right kind of place for this type of work: low-cost for W3C, open to external "invited experts", and limited in time so forced to concentrate on a concrete outcome. This is a basic, strategic decision I guess.
Jeremias Märki	no	W3C seems like a heavy-weight organization from the outside. But I did get invited to participate in the XSL-FO WG due to my involvement with Apache FOP. Sadly, I don't have enough cycles to participate in a formal role, only as occasional contributor, in which case the process is extremely closed of to the outside. It's as if some companies have a lot to hide and agendas to pursue. I guess that's most of why W3C is a bit unattractive to me. It hasn't really been done, yet, but I think the ASF's way of doing things would offer a better environment to work out a standard because everything has to be done in the open.
Raphaël Troncy
Peter Keane	yes
Gregg Kellogg	yes
Stephan Wenger	no	Its the old story: W3C is perceived to be over-organized, closed, and driven by large entities. Some of these community members rather design unprofessional specs using absurd IPR policies before they would associate themselves with W3C (or OASIS or...)
Shawn Medero	yes	For #1 (OWF work), things like OAuth seem like core web fabric components. I'm not sure why they weren't started at the W3C other a perception that the W3C moves at an iceberg pace. Having said that, I find that caution & patience are features of the W3C, and not bugs. For #2 (FBML), I think providing a place for developers to come together and logically _extend_ specs would be healthy. This would be a good tool to identify future community managers and editors for core specs. For #3, Yes. Touch APIs seemingly have their teeth in a lot of W3C work... glueing the edges together carefully seems like an ideal place for the W3C to play a role.
Steve Repetti	yes	Having an independent host is important in open standards, and this is one of the main reasons that W3C is attractive as a host.
Brian McCallister	no	Everyone currently participating is doing so as an individual and volunteer.
Luc Maisonobe	yes	W3C is well respected and seems more open and neutral than some other standardization committees
James (Jim) Caruso	yes	The question is whether the initial development of standards and specifications outside of W3C is faster and more efficient - and that later, once developed, standards can be adopted and advocated at the W3C level.
Antoine Isaac
David Storey
Max Harmony	yes
Chris Cressman
trehet yves	yes
Michael Davies	no	Member organisations have too much clout, and thus act as barriers to the adoption of standards. The W3C still hasn't recovered from the debacle of the Web Applications Activity, which caused the WHATWG breakaway.
Xavier Lacot		* etc. Clever Age is particularly interested in the developements of HTML5 and accessibility guideleines, but we are also keen on semantic contents representation. I published several years ago an OWL primer, and we would be delighted to host in our Paris-center location a serie Working Group meeting about sematic web. There are a lot of people talking about semweb technologies in France, and we would be happy to take part in the W3C process.
Jessica Cave
Shanmuga Venkatesh K	yes
Claude Needham
Paul Scott	yes
Vladimir Kirov	yes
Chris Johnson	yes
Dejan Kozina	no
Jeremie Patonnier	yes
Smith Russell	yes	It just makes sense.
Karl Dubost	yes	The W3C could be an appropriate host. Unfortunately, often it is very intimidating for many developers. It seems that you will enter in a huge machine that will slow down your work, where you will lose the simple flexibility of just putting your stuff online. When the Web started, it was a bunch of individuals interested by the idea and Tim advocating on forums (mailing-lists, usenet and conferences). Now for starting something, it requires a long list of validation, it takes months before being able to start working, etc. It would be a lot lighter if people could start working on something right away and then figure out the details of charters, Working Group, companies commitments, etc later on. Basically you don't get married at the first sight (and also rarely in love), you get to know each other, you dance together, go on a date, and after a few years, you get married. :)
John Drinkwater	yes	W3C’s current acceptance of private mailing lists for companies and organisations to .. subvert standards processes undermines their very goal.
Daniel Lohse
Frank van Harmelen	yes	the incubator mode combined with the W3C infrastructure, culture and procedures has shown to be helpful
Manu Sporny	yes	Yes, W3C would be an appropriate host for this work. The Web doesn't have a payment standard - it desperately needs one. We have told people that the Web is going to transform the way they work, but have not provided a way for individuals and companies to get compensated as a core part of the Web. How do we expect the Web to transform how we work when we haven't built in a core way to exchange compensation for work performed into the Web?
Jeulin Olivier
Chris Prather
Kimberly Blessing	yes	If there is some way for the W3C to provide a less-formal structure for some of this work, it may be an ideal partnership. I think it makes strategic sense for web-related specifications to live under the same roof.
VS Jonathon	no
laurel mitro
Mike Rankin
Copeland Bryan	yes	For OpenRecommender project: http://openrecommender.org I would very much like to make use of the latest Semantic Web technologies & standards from W3C such as RIF, SPARQL, OWL, RDF and RDFa to create semantic reasoning for a high-quality Recommendation Engine, including an aggregation of the best (open source) algorithms for information retrieval. However, I am not in a location where there are alot of domain experts... I have sought to make more contancts by going to conferences and traveling to Universities such as MIT, but have not been able to "break through" and get the support I need to make the project a success.
Adrian Casillas
Xi Bai	yes
David Bromage	yes	Currently a group of interested professionals without a host.
Gary Miller	no
Jeff Van Campen
Jonny Axelsson
Jamie Curle
Robin Berjon	yes
Toshiyuki KAMADA
Chris Mckee		Not a clue what you mean by "as Host for New York"
Micah Herstand	yes	I'm a big believer that W3C should be the leading standards body for all web standards. However, I think the w3c needs to have better co facts in the business community so their standards aren't circumvented like with XHTML 2, or Linked Data URIs (Facebook's confluence of page/resource). It can seem fruitless to support W3C when businesses just do what they want anyway, so I think it will be important moving forward to have a greater understand of business needs, since standards aren't standards if no one uses them.
Myles Stuart	yes
Andy Mabbett	yes	Wrest control from an unelected, unaccountable, partisan cabal. Prevent existing specs from being rewritten, thus breaking backwards compatibility.
Sorin Stefan
Shelley Powers
Anthony Bryan	no	I worked on Metalink at the IETF (which ended in a Standards Track RFC) because of the open nature and zero fees.
Jonnatan Cordero	yes
James Salsman	yes	The DAP working group chairs have been unwilling or unable to deal with these issues when they arose as part of defining what an active internet connection is.
Petrák Josef
Javier de la Cueva	yes	The aim of the project is free legal ontology only in Spanish. All classes and properties are written in Spanish so it is not international but language focused.
Lee Feigenbaum
Gifford Mike	yes
Susan Grossman	yes
Shane McCarron
Amit Sheth
Ulrich Nicolas Lissé
Theresa O'Connor
Jérémie Bouillon
Enrico Lamperti
Liz Peetz	yes
Brian Peterson
Victoria Wagman		I've missed out - what is NY? (I mean, in this context..)
Ron Sidell
Krzysztof Maczyński	yes	Don't let W3C become a rubberstamp for WHATWG. Encourage modular design of specs _and implementations_ so that it's easy to create a lightweight (via a plugin, a Web Service, a script library) and ubiquituously usable implementation of a spec (e.g. XBL, SMIL, XForms) without convincing a major browser vendor.
Robert Craven	yes
Jonathan Thorpe	no
Laurent Lefort	no	There is a need for a neutral ground to allow the involvement of other SDOs such as OGC, OASIS, OMG and of communities outside W3C.
Andrea Brenci	yes
Vincent Desbarres	yes
Kai Sommer	yes	An independent host is important in _open_ standards. This is one of the main reasons W3C can be such a host.
Z Jan
Christian Pieczewski
David O'Neill	yes
Adam Retter	no	It is too bureaucratic and cannot act fast enough at times. It has not kept up with development in the web itself e.g. where is the W3C social media policy - I doubt whether it has twitter channels etc?
Dick Hardt	no	W3C appears to heavy to the open web movement value proposition of W3C is unclear to many
Sören Preibusch
Christophe Strobbe	yes	UWEM builds on Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
Chris Beer	yes	Any open standard development where e-government and/or not-for-profit use anywhere is primary needs a host like W3C - (closed) standards orgs with a strong commercial interest (such as OASIS), or specific national bodies (eg AIIM) who present barriers to effective public participation or whose activities are not "global" in nature do not tend to be effective vehicles for this. WAI-WCAG is a great example of standards development in this vein. W3C really is (or should be) the UN of standards development.
Nathan Rixham	yes

4. Elements of W3C Offering

Please rank the importance of the following elements for the sort of work or work environment you want. Use the comment field for other important elements.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Not applicable	No opinion
royalty-free patent policy for pre-standards documents		1	1	6	16	22	34		10
open document license		1	2	3	9	24	39		12
individual (not organizational) licensing and other commitments	3	2	4	14	14	14	9	1	29
zero (or nominal) fee to participate	2	1	1	9	17	21	34		5
easy transition to the W3C Recommendation Track	4	5	5	16	24	14	7	1	14
connectivity with significant players in industry, research, standards, government (while maintaining vendor neutrality)	2	2	9	9	21	19	22		6
technical review by broader community	1	1		7	19	30	27		5
W3C technical staff to help mentor, connect, and facilitate	4	5	6	15	22	21	9		8
communications and marketing support from W3C staff	9	12	15	13	14	8	8		11
W3C brand for your customers or audience	11	2	8	10	18	13	16	3	9

Averages:

Choices	All responders:
Choices	Importance
royalty-free patent policy for pre-standards documents	5.99
open document license	6.18
individual (not organizational) licensing and other commitments	4.87
zero (or nominal) fee to participate	5.79
easy transition to the W3C Recommendation Track	4.61
connectivity with significant players in industry, research, standards, government (while maintaining vendor neutrality)	5.26
technical review by broader community	5.82
W3C technical staff to help mentor, connect, and facilitate	4.77
communications and marketing support from W3C staff	3.85
W3C brand for your customers or audience	4.60

Details

Responder	royalty-free patent policy for pre-standards documents	open document license	individual (not organizational) licensing and other commitments	zero (or nominal) fee to participate	easy transition to the W3C Recommendation Track	connectivity with significant players in industry, research, standards, government (while maintaining vendor neutrality)	technical review by broader community	W3C technical staff to help mentor, connect, and facilitate	communications and marketing support from W3C staff	W3C brand for your customers or audience	Other important components to an offering that would interest you
Ken Laskey	5	No opinion	5	7	4	5	6	2	2	4
Ashok Malhotra	6	6	4	5	6	5	6	3	3	3
Toby Inkster	6	6	No opinion	6	4	6	6	No opinion	No opinion	5
Marc Schröder	No opinion	7	5	6	3	4	4	3	2	5
Jeremias Märki	7	6	5	6	5	3	7	5	3	5
Raphaël Troncy	7	No opinion	No opinion	5	3	5	5	6	2	5
Peter Keane	6	6	No opinion	6	2	4	6	5	5	7
Gregg Kellogg	5	7	5	6	5	3	7	5	1	2
Stephan Wenger	5	5	7	5	1	3	4	1	1	1	These questions seem to highlight the fundamental disconnect W3C appears to have with these communities. These guys are not interested in W3C's organizational help (as much as they may need it), or marketing power. Entirely too many folks are "I know it all" guys, armchair lawyers etc. etc.
Shawn Medero	7	7	6	7	5	5	6	7	4	7	infrastructure: project page hosting, discussion tools, test suite framework, source control, issue tracking, teleconference bridges, archiving, etc.
Steve Repetti	6	6	4	7	5	7	7	6	6	6
Brian McCallister	6	No opinion	7	7	4	3	6	2	1	1
Luc Maisonobe	6	7	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	1	2	5
James (Jim) Caruso	7	7	7	4	6	6	7	6	5	5
Antoine Isaac	6	5	No opinion	5	4	4	6	3	3	6
David Storey	7	6	5	7	4	5	7	5	3	5
Max Harmony	5	7	7	7	5	4	5	5	5	Not applicable
Chris Cressman	4	5	3	7	5	5	5	4	4	4
trehet yves	6	7	3	7	6	5	4	4	5	6
Michael Davies	6	7	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	6	6	3	3	No opinion
Xavier Lacot	6	5	4	5	6	6	7	4	6	7
Jessica Cave	4	No opinion	No opinion	7	No opinion	4	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion
Shanmuga Venkatesh K	7	7	6	7	7	7	6	6	6	6
Claude Needham	5	6	6	6	4	5	5	4	5	5
Paul Scott	7	7	5	7	4	5	4	5	3	1
Vladimir Kirov	6	7	4	6	5	6	7	7	5	4
Chris Johnson	7	7	5	7	6	5	6	6	7	1
Dejan Kozina	7	7	7	7	1	1	7	2	1	1
Jeremie Patonnier	7	7	6	6	6	5	5	7	7	3	A way to offer educational material for web designer. A way to make the web designers up to date about the evolutions of mainstream standards and emerging standards. There are some interesting initiatives that could be rationalize trough the W3C (the WaSP Education TF and the Opera Web Standards Curriculum for example)
Smith Russell	5	5	4	6	5	5	5	4	3	4
Karl Dubost	2	7	6	7	5	2	2	4	2	5
John Drinkwater	7	6	No opinion	5	4	3	6	5	2	3	Working with external standards bodies, such as OASIS, to bolster importance of standards, and their use.
Daniel Lohse	6	6	1	5	5	7	5	6	6	4
Frank van Harmelen	7	6	1	6	3	7	7	5	2	5
Manu Sporny	5	5	5	5	7	3	6	3	3	6	Environment to get easy access to and feedback from the browser vendors.
Jeulin Olivier	7	7	6	5	No opinion	6	5	5	5	4
Chris Prather	5	4	No opinion	6	7	6	6	5	4	4
Kimberly Blessing	6	6	1	7	5	7	7	6	7	7
VS Jonathon	6	7	5	7	6	No opinion	5	No opinion	No opinion	5
laurel mitro	3	5	4	6	2	7	4	6	6	5
Mike Rankin	No opinion	No opinion	4	7	4	3	7	6	5	5
Copeland Bryan	7	6	6	5	5	4	6	4	1	3
Adrian Casillas	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	6	5	4	3
Xi Bai	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion
David Bromage	5	7	6	6	6	6	6	6	4	6
Gary Miller	6	7	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	4	6	7	7	7
Jeff Van Campen	7	6	No opinion	5	5	5	7	6	4	7
Jonny Axelsson	7	7	6	4	4	6	7	4	4	3
Jamie Curle	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	7	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion
Robin Berjon	7	7	No opinion	5	2	5	6	6	4	4
Toshiyuki KAMADA
Chris Mckee	7	7	2	5	5	6	7	4	5	6
Micah Herstand	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	5	7	7	5	7	7	7
Myles Stuart	6	6	No opinion	1	2	5	5	3	3	1
Andy Mabbett	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	7	No opinion	No opinion	6	No opinion	No opinion	5	Zero fees for unaligned individuals. Openness and tnasparency of decision-making process.
Sorin Stefan	4	4	3	4	4	5	6	5	5	6
Shelley Powers	7	7	5	6	4	6	7	5	2	1
Anthony Bryan	7	No opinion	No opinion	7	No opinion	7	7	6	7	No opinion
Jonnatan Cordero	5	7	7	7	6	7	5	7	5	5
James Salsman	7	7	4	6	2	3	5	4	2	No opinion
Petrák Josef	7	7	No opinion	7	1	5	6	1	4	2
Javier de la Cueva	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	6	Not applicable	7	7	7	No opinion	7
Lee Feigenbaum	5	2	5	2	5	5	7	7	5	6
Gifford Mike	6	6	4	7	5	6	7	6	6	1
Susan Grossman	4	3	No opinion	7	6	2	4	5	No opinion	1
Shane McCarron	7	5	5	1	4	7	6	2	2	7	Non-paying individual observers would be okay with me, but I think there should he an individual class of membership for a reasonable annual fee.
Amit Sheth	6	6	2	3	3	4	5	5	2	Not applicable
Ulrich Nicolas Lissé	4	7	No opinion	7	4	7	7	4	1	7
Theresa O'Connor	7	7	4	7	1	7	7	1	1	1
Jérémie Bouillon	7	7	5	4	3	5	7	4	3	No opinion
Enrico Lamperti	No opinion	5	4	7	6	6	5	2	4	3
Liz Peetz	5	7	6	7	7	6	5	6	5	7	Interpreting standards into plain English and given examples
Brian Peterson	4	4	4	5	4	5	6	5	4	4
Victoria Wagman	7	7	Not applicable	5	6	7	5	No opinion	No opinion	7
Ron Sidell	6	6	6	7	5	7	7	5	3	No opinion	reliability, availability, scalability, performance.
Krzysztof Maczyński	5	6	4	6	5	7	7	4	3	6	possibility of developing a non-normative reference implementation (of course keeping the requirement of a second one to go to PR) along with a spec (it could also serve for testing) good opportunities to liaise with other relevant groups in W3C and elsewhere
Robert Craven	5	6	7	4	No opinion	6	6	5	5	6
Jonathan Thorpe	7	7	7	7	5	7	6	6	1	6
Laurent Lefort	5	6	No opinion	4	4	7	5	6	4	6	Possibility to host W3C fellows. Better information on which tools serve (or are compliant with) which standards.
Andrea Brenci	7	7	5	5	6	6	7	6	6	5
Vincent Desbarres	No opinion	7	No opinion	7	No opinion	7	No opinion	7	No opinion	7
Kai Sommer	6	7	No opinion	6	6	7	6	5	No opinion	No opinion
Z Jan	7	3	No opinion	4	No opinion	1	1	No opinion	7	1
Christian Pieczewski	7	7	4	4	7	7	6	5	7	7
David O'Neill	6	6	7	7	7	6	6	5	3	7
Adam Retter	7	7	6	7	No opinion	6	5	4	1	3
Dick Hardt	6	6	6	6	5	3	7	4	2	4	Easy process for large organizations to make legal decision to participate
Sören Preibusch	5	6	6	6	5	4	4	6	3	Not applicable
Christophe Strobbe	7	6	No opinion	4	5	6	7	5	4	5
Chris Beer	7	7	3	7	5	7	6	6	6	7
Nathan Rixham	7	7	No opinion	6	5	5	6	6	3	5

5. Meetings and communications

Please rank the importance of the following meeting and communications options. A low value means "don't like or want" a high value means "this is important to the way I work". Please use the comment space for additional detail or other important meeting and communications options.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Not applicable	No opinion
teleconferences	13	6	6	12	14	13	13	1	12
face-to-face meetings (say, 2-3 annually)	12	8	6	14	19	11	11		9
video conferences	18	11	13	9	13	8	3	1	14
mailing lists (spam-controlled)	1	1	2	6	13	19	44	1	3
irc	16	8	8	17	9	14	7		11
chat system(s) other than IRC (details in comment box)	24	4	9	6	9	5	5	2	26
blog	9	3	7	13	20	17	14		7
microblog	14	4	16	9	8	14	4	1	20
wiki	1	3	9	8	16	19	26		8
rss or atom feeds	12	3	3	11	16	20	16		9
calendar feeds	13	8	10	10	14	10	6		19

Averages:

Choices	All responders:
Choices	Importance
teleconferences	4.29
face-to-face meetings (say, 2-3 annually)	4.20
video conferences	3.32
mailing lists (spam-controlled)	6.05
irc	3.82
chat system(s) other than IRC (details in comment box)	3.11
blog	4.67
microblog	3.74
wiki	5.39
rss or atom feeds	4.73
calendar feeds	3.82

Details

Responder	teleconferences	face-to-face meetings (say, 2-3 annually)	video conferences	mailing lists (spam-controlled)	irc	chat system(s) other than IRC (details in comment box)	blog	microblog	wiki	rss or atom feeds	calendar feeds	Additional detail or other important meeting and communications options
Ken Laskey	7	5	2	7	4	4	1	No opinion	5	4	No opinion
Ashok Malhotra	6	6	3	7	7	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	5	No opinion	No opinion
Toby Inkster	2	3	1	6	6	3	4	4	5	4	1
Marc Schröder	7	5	1	7	4	1	1	1	3	1	1
Jeremias Märki	5	2	3	7	4	4	3	3	6	5	5
Raphaël Troncy	7	6	1	7	6	No opinion	1	3	5	1	1
Peter Keane	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	7	4	No opinion	6	6	4	6	4
Gregg Kellogg	5	2	1	6	5	No opinion	4	2	5	5	2
Stephan Wenger	3	2	3	7	5	Not applicable	5	5	4	4	3	Many of the communities I have some relationship with are really only a handful of people, who meet in bars (literally) and discuss things over drinks. The fact that the list above does not even list "meet in a social environment, but still discuss business" shows, to me, another disconnect W3C may have with these people.
Shawn Medero	4	7	4	7	6	No opinion	6	6	7	7	6	A W3C jabber server might be nice... but more as a community/social tool than anything else.
Steve Repetti	7	6	5	7	3	3	7	6	6	6	6
Brian McCallister	1	1	1	7	2	1	2	1	4	2	1
Luc Maisonobe	6	5	No opinion	7	No opinion	No opinion	1	1	3	2	3
James (Jim) Caruso	7	7	No opinion	7	No opinion	No opinion	7	No opinion	6	5	7
Antoine Isaac	6	5	2	7	6	1	2	2	6	3	2
David Storey	1	4	1	4	1	5	6	3	4	1	3	XMPP
Max Harmony	1	1	2	6	7	1	5	4	6	6	6
Chris Cressman	1	1	1	7	1	1	5	7	7	5	5
trehet yves	6	5	5	2	3	2	4	4	5	5	2
Michael Davies	No opinion	3	No opinion	7	2	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	7	No opinion
Xavier Lacot	5	7	6	7	4	3	6	6	5	6	5
Jessica Cave	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	7	No opinion
Shanmuga Venkatesh K	6	6	5	6	4	5	6	6	7	7	5
Claude Needham	5	6	6	7	4	No opinion	4	No opinion	2	5	2
Paul Scott	1	1	1	7	3	4	5	6	7	5	4
Vladimir Kirov	3	4	4	6	6	5	7	6	7	6	6
Chris Johnson	3	1	3	7	1	1	5	4	4	5	2
Dejan Kozina	5	3	4	7	1	1	3	1	4	6	3
Jeremie Patonnier	2	7	1	5	6	6	7	5	5	6	7	You should consider to organize some public events. Some where done by the W3C this year and the past year in Paris, France (about HTML5 and the Web Mobile Initiative) and there were a huge success.
Smith Russell	4	4	4	4	3	3	5	3	3	4	4
Karl Dubost	2	5	3	7	5	5	6	7	6	7	6	irc is important but less and less used by geeks, people are using microblogging and IM.
John Drinkwater	6	4	2	5	6	1	5	3	4	7	7	If the question about non-IRC chat systems meant Jabber/XMPP, it would be a 7 +++++++
Daniel Lohse	5	5	5	6	1	1	7	4	7	7	4
Frank van Harmelen	7	7	3	6	4	No opinion	1	1	3	1	1
Manu Sporny	6	1	1	6	2	2	1	1	2	1	1	Most of the good work is done via teleconference and mailing list - W3C Process and brand is the most compelling parts of W3C.
Jeulin Olivier	4	4	5	7	2	5	5	6	5	6	4
Chris Prather	4	5	4	5	6	3	5	4	3	6	3
Kimberly Blessing	5	6	7	5	2	1	3	3	5	7	3	The WGs I have been part of have primarily relied on text-based communications with regular calls and occasional F2F meetings; this only proved to me that we're rather poor communicators. I strongly believe that more video/face-to-face communications must be used to build stronger WGs who trust in one another and can communicate openly and honestly to achieve results.
VS Jonathon	5	5	5	7	1	1	5	No opinion	7	No opinion	1
laurel mitro	No opinion	1	6	7	3	3	6	No opinion	No opinion	1	2
Mike Rankin	7	4	3	4	2	6	4	3	6	6	5	xmpp, like gtalk
Copeland Bryan	4	3	5	5	1	2	3	1	7	6	6
Adrian Casillas	No opinion	No opinion	5	6	No opinion	No opinion	6	No opinion	5	6	6
Xi Bai	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion
David Bromage	6	5	4	7	1	1	4	3	6	2	4
Gary Miller	2	5	2	6	1	No opinion	7	No opinion	5	7	No opinion
Jeff Van Campen	3	4	1	7	6	1	5	6	7	6	2
Jonny Axelsson	5	5	3	5	4	No opinion	4	3	2	1	2
Jamie Curle	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	7	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion
Robin Berjon	1	4	2	7	5	1	1	1	3	1	1
Toshiyuki KAMADA
Chris Mckee	1	4	4	6	4	1	6	3	5	4	No opinion
Micah Herstand	1	7	5	5	6	6	7	7	7	1	5	Skype username for questions would be great.
Myles Stuart	6	2	1	7	1	1	2	2	7	4	1
Andy Mabbett	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	7	No opinion	No opinion	5	5	6	5	No opinion
Sorin Stefan	2	5	5	4	4	4	4	4	3	5	5
Shelley Powers	1	1	1	7	5	No opinion	6	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion
Anthony Bryan	1	2	No opinion	7	2	2	No opinion	No opinion	4	4	No opinion
Jonnatan Cordero	5	5	6	5	7	7	6	6	7	5	5
James Salsman	2	1	2	7	5	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	7	No opinion	No opinion
Petrák Josef	5	5	3	6	1	Not applicable	7	6	6	1	1
Javier de la Cueva	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	7	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	7	No opinion
Lee Feigenbaum	6	5	No opinion	6	6	1	5	1	7	No opinion	No opinion
Gifford Mike	1	2	3	6	4	5	6	7	6	6	5
Susan Grossman	6	1	2	5	No opinion	4	3	No opinion	7	No opinion	No opinion
Shane McCarron	7	5	2	7	7	1	4	3	5	5	5	IRC works fine - you don't need to support other systems. It would be awesome if there were a SIP gateway into Zakim though.
Amit Sheth	3	5	4	5	6	6	5	4	6	5	6
Ulrich Nicolas Lissé	4	7	1	7	4	No opinion	4	4	7	7	7
Theresa O'Connor	1	1	1	7	5	1	4	3	7	4	1
Jérémie Bouillon	7	2	6	7	4	No opinion	7	1	7	7	7
Enrico Lamperti	5	6	4	3	2	1	7	3	6	3	1
Liz Peetz	4	3	3	5	No opinion	No opinion	6	6	6	6	4
Brian Peterson	4	3	3	6	3	3	6	3	6	6	3
Victoria Wagman	Not applicable	7	Not applicable	Not applicable	1	5	7	Not applicable	7	7	No opinion	Chat options - yes, which tools - vary. Most common: Skype.
Ron Sidell	7	6	6	3	4	7	6	6	6	7	No opinion	XMPP instant messaging would really be helpful, especially using a server dedicated to this particular service (as opposed to a generic version like Google-Talk.
Krzysztof Maczyński	4	2	3	6	6	6	3	2	6	4	3
Robert Craven	No opinion	6	No opinion	6	6	5	7	3	7	5	5
Jonathan Thorpe	1	7	1	1	1	1	5	1	1	6	6
Laurent Lefort	5	7	5	4	5	7	4	5	7	4	4	Core issue for Australia: difficulty to assist face-to-face meetings and even teleconferences. The current communication scheme is far too dependent on the level of commitment (and on the availability) of the AC representative to do W3C-related work. It is no longer adapated to the scale of W3C in terms of number of working groups to follow and to the organisational structure of some members (especially multinationals with multiple sites engaged in W3C).
Andrea Brenci	6	4	6	7	7	No opinion	5	5	6	6	5
Vincent Desbarres	7	4	7	5	1	7	5	5	3	5	6
Kai Sommer	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	7	No opinion	5	4	No opinion	7	7	4	@other chat systems: live chat may be important and (ie) Jabber has chat rooms
Z Jan	4	1	1	7	1	1	7	1	7	7	No opinion
Christian Pieczewski	3	4	5	6	3	3	6	5	7	5	5
David O'Neill	7	6	7	7	7	7	6	6	7	6	7
Adam Retter	6	7	6	4	4	4	5	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	5
Dick Hardt	5	5	2	7	3	3	3	3	5	3	3
Sören Preibusch	4	6	2	5	1	1	1	1	3	1	3
Christophe Strobbe	7	4	1	7	4	1	1	1	5	1	1	Combination of IRC with teleconference technology (zakim bridge, list of attendees, generating minutes, ...) is very useful.
Chris Beer	4	4	5	7	7	No opinion	5	5	7	4	4	Local W3C office support and liaison
Nathan Rixham	No opinion	No opinion	No opinion	6	5	No opinion	5	No opinion	6	6	No opinion

6. Additional Infrastructure

Beyond the communications tools listed above, what infrastructure services do you expect while doing your work? Please rank the importance of the following items, and if you have used the W3C infrastructure, let us know your level of satisfaction.

If there are other important elements of infrastructure not listed here, please let us know in the comment box below.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Not applicable	No opinion	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Didn't know	Not applicable	No opinion
ability to publish on w3.org	5	2	3	12	18	15	14	2	19		3	1	9	8	6	3	8		52
issue / action tracking				8	14	29	22		17	1	3	3	6	12	10	4	3	1	47
irc bots for connectivity with bridge, minutes, issue tracker	10	9	7	5	10	13	7	1	28	3		2	4	6	9	5	5		56
version control system (cvs, mercurial)	2	2	3	8	17	14	21		23	2	3	2	6	5	4	1	6		61
tool for accepting review comments	1	1	2	9	15	25	11	1	25	2	2	2	4	5	3	1	6	1	64
tool for managing how review comments have been handled	2	1	6	6	15	17	11	1	31	2	5	2	3	4	3		8		63
test harness	1	1	2	5	7	14	19	2	39	3	3	2	2	3	4	2	8		63

Averages:

Choices	All responders:
Choices	Importance	Satisfaction
ability to publish on w3.org	4.99	4.73
issue / action tracking	5.89	4.82
irc bots for connectivity with bridge, minutes, issue tracker	4.03	4.97
version control system (cvs, mercurial)	5.42	4.09
tool for accepting review comments	5.42	4.11
tool for managing how review comments have been handled	5.17	3.58
test harness	5.73	4.00

Details

Responder	ability to publish on w3.org	issue / action tracking	irc bots for connectivity with bridge, minutes, issue tracker	version control system (cvs, mercurial)	tool for accepting review comments	tool for managing how review comments have been handled	test harness	Additional infrastructure
Ken Laskey	3 / 6 /	5 / 2 /	4 / 4 /	No opinion / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /
Ashok Malhotra	5 / 5 /	4 / 7 /	6 / 6 /	3 / 2 /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Toby Inkster	6 / No opinion /	5 / 6 /	6 / 5 /	4 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	Zakim's European numbers being non-functional are a pain point for me right now!
Marc Schröder	6 / 4 /	6 / 6 /	3 / 4 /	5 / 4 /	No opinion / Didn't know /	No opinion / Didn't know /	No opinion / Didn't know /
Jeremias Märki	4 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /
Raphaël Troncy	5 / 7 /	4 / 5 /	5 / 6 /	4 / 1 /	2 / No opinion /	3 / 2 /	5 / 3 /
Peter Keane	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Gregg Kellogg	7 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	2 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /
Stephan Wenger	2 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	1 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	3 / No opinion /	Not applicable / No opinion /	Re "test harness": in many communities there is an aversion against anything that even remotely smells like conformity tests.
Shawn Medero	6 / 5 /	7 / 5 /	7 / 7 /	7 / 5 /	7 / 4 /	7 / 4 /	7 / 2 /	(test harness capabilities seem to vary wildly across the W3C)
Steve Repetti	4 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	3 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /
Brian McCallister	4 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	2 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /
Luc Maisonobe	5 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
James (Jim) Caruso	5 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /
Antoine Isaac	5 / 4 /	4 / 5 /	6 / 6 /	No opinion / No opinion /	5 / 4 /	5 / 4 /	No opinion / No opinion /
David Storey	5 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	1 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	3 / No opinion /	3 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /
Max Harmony	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Chris Cressman	5 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
trehet yves	Not applicable / Didn't know /	6 / 4 /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / Didn't know /	6 / 3 /	No opinion / Didn't know /	6 / 6 /
Michael Davies	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Xavier Lacot	3 / 5 /	7 / 6 /	3 / 3 /	5 / 5 /	6 / 7 /	6 / 6 /	6 / 7 /
Jessica Cave	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Shanmuga Venkatesh K	7 / 5 /	7 / 5 /	6 / 6 /	6 / 6 /	6 / Didn't know /	7 / Didn't know /	7 / 7 /
Claude Needham	No opinion / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Paul Scott	6 / 2 /	5 / 3 /	3 / 4 /	5 / 6 /	5 / 5 /	No opinion / No opinion /	7 / 5 /
Vladimir Kirov	5 / 5 /	6 / 7 /	6 / Didn't know /	5 / 6 /	6 / No opinion /	5 / Didn't know /	7 / 6 /
Chris Johnson	5 / 6 /	6 / 5 /	1 / 1 /	4 / 4 /	6 / 5 /	5 / 5 /	5 / 6 /
Dejan Kozina	4 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	2 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /
Jeremie Patonnier	2 / Didn't know /	4 / 2 /	4 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	7 / 2 /	No opinion / No opinion /
Smith Russell	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Karl Dubost	6 / 4 /	7 / 6 /	7 / 6 /	6 / 2 /	7 / 3 /	6 / 3 /	4 / 3 /	there are better version control system out there in terms of design and social features. W3C has to be able to give an experience for users which is similar.
John Drinkwater	5 / 2 /	6 / 4 /	7 / 5 /	7 / 3 /	6 / No opinion /	2 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /
Daniel Lohse	4 / Didn't know /	5 / Didn't know /	5 / Didn't know /	7 / Didn't know /	7 / Didn't know /	3 / Didn't know /	7 / Didn't know /
Frank van Harmelen	7 / 5 /	6 / 6 /	5 / 3 /	6 / 3 /	4 / 1 /	4 / 1 /	3 / 1 /
Manu Sporny	6 / 5 /	6 / 5 /	6 / 6 /	6 / 4 /	6 / 2 /	6 / 2 /	7 / 4 /
Jeulin Olivier	1 / No opinion /	4 / Not applicable /	No opinion / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	5 / Not applicable /	5 / 2 /	6 / 5 /	"test harness": there are W3C validators online (CSS, HTML, …), but it would be useful to be able to download and install them in our company (using some version control system). On-line validation is good, but slow, and insecured (content is sent on the web).
Chris Prather	6 / No opinion /	5 / Didn't know /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	6 / Didn't know /
Kimberly Blessing	7 / 2 /	7 / 2 /	5 / 7 /	7 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
VS Jonathon	Not applicable / No opinion /	6 / 4 /	Not applicable / No opinion /	6 / 4 /	Not applicable / No opinion /	Not applicable / No opinion /	Not applicable / No opinion /
laurel mitro	4 / Didn't know /	4 / 5 /	2 / No opinion /	2 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / Didn't know /
Mike Rankin	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	2 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	2 / No opinion /
Copeland Bryan	7 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	2 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	3 / No opinion /	1 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	transparent idea submission/selection process (i.e. voting\membership system) + Continuous Integration (i.e. Hudson) + Dependency Management (i.e. Maven) + Source Code Management (i.e. SVN & Bug Tracker) + Test Frameworks for its standards (xUnit: jUnit, php-unit, pyunit, etc...) + senior/peer-reviewed code acceptance process + good collaborative community tools such as wikis/conference rooms/scrum tools = successful software projects
Adrian Casillas	1 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /
Xi Bai	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
David Bromage	6 / 6 /	6 / 6 /	1 / 1 /	5 / 5 /	5 / 5 /	5 / 5 /	5 / 5 /	"Sandpit" service for live testing of ideas would be useful.
Gary Miller	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Jeff Van Campen	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Jonny Axelsson	7 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	3 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /
Jamie Curle	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Robin Berjon	7 / 5 /	7 / 4 /	6 / 6 /	7 / 5 /	5 / 4 /	5 / 4 /	3 / 2 /
Toshiyuki KAMADA
Chris Mckee	5 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /
Micah Herstand	7 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Myles Stuart	1 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	1 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /
Andy Mabbett	No opinion / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Sorin Stefan	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Shelley Powers	7 / 3 /	7 / 6 /	6 / 5 /	6 / 2 /	6 / 2 /	6 / 2 /	7 / 2 /
Anthony Bryan	No opinion / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	2 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Jonnatan Cordero	5 / Didn't know /	7 / 6 /	6 / Didn't know /	7 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /
James Salsman	5 / 4 /	5 / 5 /	4 / 6 /	7 / 4 /	6 / 6 /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Petrák Josef	7 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	1 / No opinion /	1 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Javier de la Cueva	6 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /
Lee Feigenbaum	6 / 4 /	7 / 5 /	7 / 7 /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Gifford Mike	4 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	2 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /
Susan Grossman	5 / 6 /	7 / 7 /	1 / No opinion /	6 / 5 /	4 / 4 /	3 / 3 /	No opinion / No opinion /
Shane McCarron	7 / 6 /	7 / 7 /	6 / 5 /	7 / 7 /	6 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	It would be great if there were a review comment tracking tool that mapped to the required workflow. We had one in the XHTML 2 Working Group, but I dont know of one at the W3C.
Amit Sheth	6 / 4 /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Ulrich Nicolas Lissé	4 / Didn't know /	7 / 1 /	7 / 4 /	7 / 4 /	7 / 1 /	7 / 1 /	7 / 1 /
Theresa O'Connor	1 / No opinion /	5 / 3 /	2 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	1 / No opinion /	1 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /
Jérémie Bouillon	5 / Didn't know /	7 / 3 /	6 / Didn't know /	7 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /
Enrico Lamperti	No opinion / No opinion /	6 / 5 /	4 / No opinion /	3 / No opinion /	5 / 5 /	6 / 6 /	6 / 6 /
Liz Peetz	5 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Brian Peterson	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /
Victoria Wagman	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / Didn't know /
Ron Sidell	No opinion / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /
Krzysztof Maczyński	3 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /	4 / No opinion /
Robert Craven	7 / 7 /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	5 / 6 /	5 / 5 /	No opinion / No opinion /
Jonathan Thorpe	4 / 4 /	6 / 6 /	1 / 1 /	1 / 1 /	5 / 5 /	5 / 5 /	1 / 1 /
Laurent Lefort	6 / 4 /	5 / 4 /	5 / 5 /	4 / Didn't know /	7 / Didn't know /	7 / Didn't know /	No opinion / No opinion /	One important part of the W3C infrastructure is the tool used to manage the access rights of working groups participants: with the push to more openess of W3C, some re-thinking has to be done to handle contributions from the outside of W3C with an admin workload which is comparable to what can be done outside W3C. Update the W3C Process to allow individuals or for organisations to declare their support to some W3C-led activities through a "follower" status. The work done by W3C to archive (preserve) all the technical exchanges is also important.
Andrea Brenci	5 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	7 / 4 /
Vincent Desbarres	4 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Kai Sommer	5 / No opinion /	6 / 6 /	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Z Jan	No opinion / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	1 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Christian Pieczewski	4 / Didn't know /	6 / Didn't know /	3 / Didn't know /	7 / Didn't know /	7 / Didn't know /	7 / Didn't know /	7 / Didn't know /
David O'Neill	7 / 4 /	7 / 5 /	7 / 6 /	6 / Didn't know /	7 / Didn't know /	7 / Didn't know /	7 / Didn't know /
Adam Retter	1 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	1 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	6 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /
Dick Hardt	4 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	2 / No opinion /	3 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	5 / No opinion /	7 / No opinion /
Sören Preibusch	6 / 6 /	5 / No opinion /	3 / 7 /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Christophe Strobbe	No opinion / No opinion /	4 / 5 /	6 / 7 /	5 / 6 /	6 / No opinion /	3 / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /
Chris Beer	7 / 7 /	6 / 4 /	7 / 5 /	6 / Didn't know /	6 / 6 /	6 / 6 /	No opinion / Didn't know /
Nathan Rixham	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /	No opinion / No opinion /

7. How Would You (re)Design the Incubator Activity?

If you have ideas for how W3C could make it easier for people to bring new work to W3C for incubation and transition to standardization, please use the comment space below to share your ideas.

Details

Responder	Your Ideas
Ken Laskey	Signing up and getting PP commitments were tedious during URW3-XG. It also put off people who were interested but couldn't be bothered with the multi-step process. If this hasn't been streamlined, it needs to be.
Ashok Malhotra	The incubator activity seems fine to me. We had a good experience. The limited time helped focus the XG and we were able to produce a good recommendation and a charter for a WG which has been chartered. The ability to include individual members in the XG was important as we were able to get a wide range of experience and interest.
Toby Inkster	Make it easier to launch an XG with fewer member organisations supporting it. (Though of course member organisations actively objecting to it should be taken into account!)
Marc Schröder
Jeremias Märki
Raphaël Troncy
Peter Keane
Gregg Kellogg
Stephan Wenger	I would scrap the idea. W3C is too organized a setting to make it a natural fit with those communities--why continue to desperately try?
Shawn Medero	Make it a more social, collaborative environment. If you have a couple of fledgling technologies that can look across at each other and either see the connections or realize there are overlaps then they can figure out for themselves how to increase the likelihood they emerge from incubation in a healthy place. For the incubation technologies that wish to be commercialized, it would be helpful to partner them with folks capable of doing patent reviews, prior art research, etc. Also giving them access to industry, former program managers or even relevant CEO/CTO/CIOs, etc who could provide input on what the format would need to be successful in industry.
Steve Repetti	i think this quiz is a good out-reach.
Brian McCallister
Luc Maisonobe
James (Jim) Caruso
Antoine Isaac
David Storey	A a lot of people probably don't even realise such a thing as incubator groups exist, unless they are familiar with how the W3C works or know someone on the W3C staff or works with them. The main thing would be to raise awareness in the developer community
Max Harmony
Chris Cressman
trehet yves	autogenerated "valid w3c logo" to avoid false "valid" website.
Michael Davies
Xavier Lacot
Jessica Cave
Shanmuga Venkatesh K	Not part of it. No comments
Claude Needham
Paul Scott
Vladimir Kirov
Chris Johnson
Dejan Kozina
Jeremie Patonnier
Smith Russell
Karl Dubost	Incubator activity should be super easy to start (3 individuals even public) but could be not very visible, then the visibility of the incubator group will be raised by positive actions (to be defined, commits, reviews, etc) in terms of participation ala stackoverflow (meritocracy) giving more and more access to some of the features.
John Drinkwater
Daniel Lohse
Frank van Harmelen
Manu Sporny	Take W3C out of the loop when it comes to starting an Incubator Activity (XG). People from around the Web should see the W3C as a venue to create new specifications and the best way to ensure that can happen is to allow the creation of XG activities w/o W3C involvement (or with a very low barrier to entry). I should be able to fill out a form (XG Charter) and have an XG approved in short order. Taking a spec to REC should then require a certain amount of money per year (based on W3C resources consumed). Currently, the process of W3C approval to start an XG is not working - W3M and Team are far too overloaded with other work to hand-hold the incubator activities. Let a thousand flowers bloom and pick the best ones to transition to REC-track activities. This way, W3C can ensure that it is not passing up on important activities. It has been incredibly difficult to start a PaySwarm XG at W3C because W3C has not made it a priority - exploratory work should not depend on W3M - you can't know everything about the Web or it's future direction. Worse, not allowing easy exploratory work at W3C harms the W3C in two ways 1) It allows the work to be started and gain traction elsewhere and 2) You lose the opportunity to show folks what the W3C can offer. Remove the very high barrier to entry and you'll see more interest in W3C moving forward.
Jeulin Olivier
Chris Prather
Kimberly Blessing	I'm not very familiar with it, but I think the W3C needs to provide the infrastructure (tools) for anyone to be able to start up an effort with minimal process knowledge. The W3C can help to promote the activity which will help attract other interested parties (and allow some at large companies to participate, whereas with efforts outside the W3C they may not be able to do so). As the activity gains momentum, the W3C can help shape the group into a formal activity and provide mentoring to the chairs.
VS Jonathon	I think opening up a public forum monitored by those in the W3C would make a huge positive impact on the Web, making important ideas become addressed and errors fixed.
laurel mitro
Mike Rankin
Copeland Bryan	Much in the way Apache Incubator project has become a gold standard for large-scale open source development around specific application domains/niches, W3C should support development of all major open source software applications and tools which are based on its current standards. For example, there's no reason that Apache should have more XML projects/tools, or, that various private companies should have more RDF, OWL, SPARQL and Semantic Web tools, released only under commercial license. Another good example is this page: http://esw.w3.org/SemanticWebTools which was a great initiative, and now it seems dead because of lack of community building and/or guidance around the various separate (and separately licensed) projects linked to. W3C should "eat its own dogfood" so to speak and aim for a community which demonstrates the effectiveness of W3C standards with real, strong, open source software projects under the W3C banner/license. Of course, it should continue its good work on the standardization side of things as well and not spread itself too thin...
Adrian Casillas
Xi Bai
David Bromage
Gary Miller
Jeff Van Campen
Jonny Axelsson
Jamie Curle
Robin Berjon	Individual membership Much faster and easier to start up
Toshiyuki KAMADA
Chris Mckee
Micah Herstand	There should be a tutorial as to what standards are, how they generally are formed, and bow to write one. Clearly individuals would only ever write a first draft but it would make the process much clearer if individuals with ideas who have no standardization experience could get in the swing of things quickly. A crowd-sourced idea space for standards would also be cool, especially if the ideas were wikisso they couldbe improved upon throughout the process of voting.
Myles Stuart
Andy Mabbett
Sorin Stefan	Any method of communication should facilitate and accommodate bringing the new work to W3C (almost similar to "Like" button that nowadays you find it on a lot sites)
Shelley Powers
Anthony Bryan
Jonnatan Cordero
James Salsman
Petrák Josef
Javier de la Cueva
Lee Feigenbaum
Gifford Mike
Susan Grossman
Shane McCarron	Basically, I don't think you should have to be a member to start an incubator activity. Once the initial work is done, there should be member support to go to rec track.
Amit Sheth	There is a very limited involvement of W3C staff but given limited resources, I am not willing to ask for more involvement. Current process sort of work and without more W3C staff resource, I cannot think how we can improve the process.
Ulrich Nicolas Lissé
Theresa O'Connor
Jérémie Bouillon
Enrico Lamperti
Liz Peetz
Brian Peterson
Victoria Wagman	How hard was this survay to find? I saw "survey" in a heading, as I went to w3.org to find a css reference manual (first time I actually visit the site...) and in that post the survey is mentioned and linked to waaaay after a big chunk of text.. ... not very user friendly. I suggest you contact w3schools as they're the nr1 stop for html/css/anything guides and info, and perhaps ask the to encourage participation in this? Personally I'd heard of and understood that "w3.org "does this standardization stuff" - but first time I heared that w3.org encourages envolvment from the public, was on the podcast BoagWorld. So my recommendation is that bloggers, podcasters and other big sites that are popular are contacted and encouraged to get involved and involve their user. A more colour friendly interface would make this look a lot less "boring/nerdy". Have a "share your thoughts and effect the future of css!" buttons (and same goes of.c. for xhtml, or any other keyword.. that people can put up on their blogs. Bloggers get content and are contributing, you get the leads :) Make it news wearthy, share "success stories" etc. on blogs that make people "ohhh, I could share my; gaaaah I wish I could".. (whine ;) ) and perhaps make a difference! ) All in all, a great job you're doing! ..kind of wishing the same thing was happening when it comes to mobilephone chargers... anyway! Thanks again!
Ron Sidell
Krzysztof Maczyński	Running code wins. Along with their reports, IGs should be encouraged to provide some examples, even quite speculative and partial, of what and how could be achieved when their direction is pursued.
Robert Craven
Jonathan Thorpe
Laurent Lefort	W3C needs a new formula to manage its relationships with external and open groups/communities to support a more progressive transition to reach a state where it is possible to answer the question : do we need a (W3C) standard for that? 1) Case 1: early incubator phases and new ideas popping up in grassroots interest groups focusing on existing standards. Such activities should be allowed to grow outside W3C until they produce some material which is mature enough to start the road to standardisation phase (e.g. like a W3C Member submisison?). If there is a sufficient contingent of W3C members backing them, they should benefit from some of the collaboration tools (to be exposed to the W3C culture and to benefit from increased exposure thanks to W3C). At this stage, the role of the W3C members and of the W3C Team should be to tranparently assess (give feedback on, track the progress of) these external activities with specific indicators to understand when they can (should) lead to the start of a working group: e.g. the maturity of the work, its linkage (lineage) with work done elsewhere in W3C, its relevance to W3C, why the work should go in W3C rather than in another SDO ... Note: it is not always easy (or efficient) to manage these open forums in the time-limited activity format used by the XGs. 2) Case 2: first step on the path to standardisation I think the current XG process corresponds to the requirements for this late phase (which can be seen as the warm up period for a normal working group). The challenging issue is to identify what are the objectives criterias for the transition from 1) to 2) and what are the infrastructure requirements to facilitate the ingestion of external work into W3C. I think the answer will vary in function of the domain of activity in W3C and will also depend on the relationship to work done in W3C and to work done in other SDOs.
Andrea Brenci
Vincent Desbarres
Kai Sommer	I don't know because I never worked in a W3C group. But my current impression is that the W3C has a lot of standards and rules for joining, working, talking, writing, ... (in) a group. So interested people have to learn (and accept) this restrictions at first - before they can start up with their ideas. So I would wish that the W3C could support the spontaneity of potential members and uses that impact for high quality work of the W3C, too.
Z Jan
Christian Pieczewski
David O'Neill
Adam Retter
Dick Hardt	Self serve that allows anyone to start up an incubation and get going similar to many other web tools and services. Process can kick on once there is wide spread interest in initiative.
Sören Preibusch
Christophe Strobbe
Chris Beer
Nathan Rixham	I'd like to see more outreach from W3C and community members to other communities with a view to involving them in different incubator groups, and likewise between different IG/WGs - I would suggest that many web circles do not realize or even consider that they could be doing their work in an incubator group and through W3C, often people think of W3C as good, but not for them, or including them - I'm not sure where this common mentality has came from, but it would be good to see it addressed and for people to naturally consider W3C as an option rather than a separate standardization body that they know little about. Additionally (not sure where else to put this) I would very much like there to be some view/page/map of the IG/WG and projects on W3C and how they relate to each other - I'd also like to see an outlined approach to cover situations when efforts relate heavily to, or overlap with, other efforts, that at least one active member must be active in both efforts - or that key members from the IGs communicate about overlapping areas or at least talk through them to confirm that assumptions or background thinking on matters is correct. As an example, many of the various html, dom events and webapps api's not only interrelate, but respecify certain common events like error,abort,message etc - as another example the WebID effort (not under w3c yet afaik) uses, relies on and in some ways redefines uses and parts of the x509 and TLS specifications, this is external to W3C again but I'd like to know that should WebID get in to an IG/WG and go through standardization that part of the process would include getting the x509,TLS and security communities (PKIX at the IETF) take on this, and ensure they had input before going too far down the standards track.

More details on responses

Ken Laskey: last responded on 30, June 2010 at 18:40 (UTC)
Ashok Malhotra: last responded on 30, June 2010 at 19:27 (UTC)
Toby Inkster: last responded on 30, June 2010 at 21:50 (UTC)
Marc Schröder: last responded on 1, July 2010 at 06:57 (UTC)
Jeremias Märki: last responded on 1, July 2010 at 07:35 (UTC)
Raphaël Troncy: last responded on 1, July 2010 at 14:54 (UTC)
Peter Keane: last responded on 1, July 2010 at 15:11 (UTC)
Gregg Kellogg: last responded on 1, July 2010 at 15:13 (UTC)
Stephan Wenger: last responded on 1, July 2010 at 15:22 (UTC)
Shawn Medero: last responded on 1, July 2010 at 15:37 (UTC)
Steve Repetti: last responded on 1, July 2010 at 16:32 (UTC)
Brian McCallister: last responded on 1, July 2010 at 16:36 (UTC)
Luc Maisonobe: last responded on 1, July 2010 at 19:07 (UTC)
James (Jim) Caruso: last responded on 2, July 2010 at 14:44 (UTC)
Antoine Isaac: last responded on 2, July 2010 at 15:16 (UTC)
David Storey: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 00:26 (UTC)
Max Harmony: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 00:47 (UTC)
Chris Cressman: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 01:19 (UTC)
trehet yves: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 01:40 (UTC)
Michael Davies: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 01:50 (UTC)
Xavier Lacot: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 03:12 (UTC)
Jessica Cave: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 04:05 (UTC)
Shanmuga Venkatesh K: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 04:32 (UTC)
Claude Needham: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 05:25 (UTC)
Paul Scott: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 05:37 (UTC)
Vladimir Kirov: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 05:38 (UTC)
Chris Johnson: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 07:05 (UTC)
Dejan Kozina: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 08:28 (UTC)
Jeremie Patonnier: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 10:56 (UTC)
Smith Russell: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 11:19 (UTC)
Karl Dubost: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 11:20 (UTC)
John Drinkwater: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 12:18 (UTC)
Daniel Lohse: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 13:00 (UTC)
Frank van Harmelen: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 13:19 (UTC)
Manu Sporny: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 13:21 (UTC)
Jeulin Olivier: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 13:32 (UTC)
Chris Prather: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 16:34 (UTC)
Kimberly Blessing: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 20:17 (UTC)
VS Jonathon: last responded on 3, July 2010 at 21:35 (UTC)
laurel mitro: last responded on 4, July 2010 at 01:46 (UTC)
Mike Rankin: last responded on 4, July 2010 at 01:50 (UTC)
Copeland Bryan: last responded on 4, July 2010 at 04:29 (UTC)
Adrian Casillas: last responded on 4, July 2010 at 12:01 (UTC)
Xi Bai: last responded on 4, July 2010 at 23:49 (UTC)
David Bromage: last responded on 5, July 2010 at 02:15 (UTC)
Gary Miller: last responded on 5, July 2010 at 09:04 (UTC)
Jeff Van Campen: last responded on 5, July 2010 at 09:45 (UTC)
Jonny Axelsson: last responded on 5, July 2010 at 10:07 (UTC)
Jamie Curle: last responded on 5, July 2010 at 10:49 (UTC)
Robin Berjon: last responded on 5, July 2010 at 11:10 (UTC)
Toshiyuki KAMADA: last responded on 5, July 2010 at 11:22 (UTC)
Chris Mckee: last responded on 5, July 2010 at 11:54 (UTC)
Micah Herstand: last responded on 5, July 2010 at 12:38 (UTC)
Myles Stuart: last responded on 5, July 2010 at 13:07 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett: last responded on 5, July 2010 at 13:24 (UTC)
Sorin Stefan: last responded on 5, July 2010 at 14:37 (UTC)
Shelley Powers: last responded on 5, July 2010 at 15:06 (UTC)
Anthony Bryan: last responded on 5, July 2010 at 17:31 (UTC)
Jonnatan Cordero: last responded on 5, July 2010 at 23:58 (UTC)
James Salsman: last responded on 6, July 2010 at 06:34 (UTC)
Petrák Josef: last responded on 6, July 2010 at 09:33 (UTC)
Javier de la Cueva: last responded on 6, July 2010 at 09:40 (UTC)
Lee Feigenbaum: last responded on 6, July 2010 at 12:24 (UTC)
Gifford Mike: last responded on 6, July 2010 at 13:27 (UTC)
Susan Grossman: last responded on 6, July 2010 at 13:47 (UTC)
Shane McCarron: last responded on 6, July 2010 at 14:49 (UTC)
Amit Sheth: last responded on 7, July 2010 at 00:53 (UTC)
Ulrich Nicolas Lissé: last responded on 7, July 2010 at 08:06 (UTC)
Theresa O'Connor: last responded on 7, July 2010 at 20:16 (UTC)
Jérémie Bouillon: last responded on 7, July 2010 at 20:17 (UTC)
Enrico Lamperti: last responded on 7, July 2010 at 23:53 (UTC)
Liz Peetz: last responded on 8, July 2010 at 00:06 (UTC)
Brian Peterson: last responded on 9, July 2010 at 03:12 (UTC)
Victoria Wagman: last responded on 9, July 2010 at 16:50 (UTC)
Ron Sidell: last responded on 9, July 2010 at 18:23 (UTC)
Krzysztof Maczyński: last responded on 10, July 2010 at 18:53 (UTC)
Robert Craven: last responded on 11, July 2010 at 16:58 (UTC)
Jonathan Thorpe: last responded on 11, July 2010 at 18:32 (UTC)
Laurent Lefort: last responded on 12, July 2010 at 04:53 (UTC)
Andrea Brenci: last responded on 12, July 2010 at 07:28 (UTC)
Vincent Desbarres: last responded on 12, July 2010 at 13:04 (UTC)
Kai Sommer: last responded on 12, July 2010 at 14:34 (UTC)
Z Jan: last responded on 12, July 2010 at 18:50 (UTC)
Christian Pieczewski: last responded on 13, July 2010 at 10:03 (UTC)
David O'Neill: last responded on 13, July 2010 at 16:43 (UTC)
Adam Retter: last responded on 13, July 2010 at 22:33 (UTC)
Dick Hardt: last responded on 24, July 2010 at 14:59 (UTC)
Sören Preibusch: last responded on 24, July 2010 at 17:09 (UTC)
Christophe Strobbe: last responded on 2, August 2010 at 10:56 (UTC)
Chris Beer: last responded on 20, August 2010 at 11:22 (UTC)
Nathan Rixham: last responded on 21, August 2010 at 21:04 (UTC)

Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire

Report issues on GitHub project w3c/wbs-design or by mail to sysreq.

W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Making W3C the place for new Web standards

1. About You

Summary

View by responder

Details

View by choice

2. Activities Needing a Host

Details

3. W3C as Host for New Work

Summary

Details

4. Elements of W3C Offering

Summary

Details

5. Meetings and communications

Summary

Details

6. Additional Infrastructure

Summary

Details

7. How Would You (re)Design the Incubator Activity?

Details

More details on responses

Footer Navigation

Contact W3C