w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
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: w3t-archive@w3.org
This questionnaire was open from 2010-06-15 to 2010-06-20.
No answer has been received.
Jump to results for question:
- W3C Value Proposition
- Barriers to Participation
- If you have already created an Incubator Group...
- Infrastructure
1. W3C Value Proposition
Please rank the importance of the following to you in your choice to bring work to W3C (for pre-standards development or standardization). If you have used the existing W3C Incubator Process or Recommendation Track, please also indicate your satisfaction with each item.
If an item of value to you does not appear in the list, please tell us more about what you value in the comment box below.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| 1 | |
| international community | |
| vendor neutrality | |
| royalty-free patent policy | |
| process | |
| connectivity with IT industry | |
| connectivity with research communities | |
| liaisons with governments | |
| liaisons with other standards bodies | |
| reputation / track record / Tim Berners-lee visibility | |
| w3c is where that technology is being developed | |
| infrastructure (list archives, IRC, teleconference services, wikis, blogs, etc.) | |
| quality control through reviews by other communities (technical architecture group, WAI, Internationalization, etc.) | |
| principles for the Web (open, available to all, on any device, etc.) | |
| principles for operations (consensus-driven, public accountability, etc.) | |
| full-time technical staff (helping to coordinate work, participating in group discussions, sharing institutional experience, ...) | |
| communications and marketing staff | |
| relevance of current W3C work |
Averages:
| Choices | All responders: | |
|---|---|---|
| Importance | Satisfaction | |
| international community | N/A | N/A |
| vendor neutrality | N/A | N/A |
| royalty-free patent policy | N/A | N/A |
| process | N/A | N/A |
| connectivity with IT industry | N/A | N/A |
| connectivity with research communities | N/A | N/A |
| liaisons with governments | N/A | N/A |
| liaisons with other standards bodies | N/A | N/A |
| reputation / track record / Tim Berners-lee visibility | N/A | N/A |
| w3c is where that technology is being developed | N/A | N/A |
| infrastructure (list archives, IRC, teleconference services, wikis, blogs, etc.) | N/A | N/A |
| quality control through reviews by other communities (technical architecture group, WAI, Internationalization, etc.) | N/A | N/A |
| principles for the Web (open, available to all, on any device, etc.) | N/A | N/A |
| principles for operations (consensus-driven, public accountability, etc.) | N/A | N/A |
| full-time technical staff (helping to coordinate work, participating in group discussions, sharing institutional experience, ...) | N/A | N/A |
| communications and marketing staff | N/A | N/A |
| relevance of current W3C work | N/A | N/A |
Details
| Responder | international community | vendor neutrality | royalty-free patent policy | process | connectivity with IT industry | connectivity with research communities | liaisons with governments | liaisons with other standards bodies | reputation / track record / Tim Berners-lee visibility | w3c is where that technology is being developed | infrastructure (list archives, IRC, teleconference services, wikis, blogs, etc.) | quality control through reviews by other communities (technical architecture group, WAI, Internationalization, etc.) | principles for the Web (open, available to all, on any device, etc.) | principles for operations (consensus-driven, public accountability, etc.) | full-time technical staff (helping to coordinate work, participating in group discussions, sharing institutional experience, ...) | communications and marketing staff | relevance of current W3C work | Other value propositions |
|---|
2. Barriers to Participation
If you have considered bringing work to W3C but real or perceived barriers dissuaded you, we'd like to hear from you. Or, if you've encountered barriers while working within W3C, please let us know. Please rank the importance of the following barriers to participation.
If you have encountered other perceived or real barriers not listed here, please tell us more in the comment box below.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| 1 | |
| organizational commitments (rather than individual commitments) | |
| cost of Membership | |
| not enough time to do the necessary work | |
| face-to-face meetings cost too much or aren't worth it | |
| parts of process inherently too slow (e.g., 4 weeks for charter review) | |
| consensus-based approach burdensome | |
| wide review requirement of process burdensome | |
| implementation experience requirement of process burdensome | |
| the community does not include people I know | |
| differing view on what is important for the Web | |
| differing view on Web Architecture | |
| concern that particular technologies will be imposed (e.g., URIs, XML namespaces, RDF, ...) | |
| competing technology suggests ideas will not be welcome | |
| don't know the W3C process; seems complicated or time-consuming to learn | |
| don't want to lose control of my work | |
| copyright license not open enough | |
| concerns about the W3C Royalty-Free Patent Policy | |
| publications requirements burdensome | |
| tooling or infrastructure not what I want | |
| concerns about role of W3C Director in process (of assessing consensus) |
Averages:
| Choices | All responders: |
|---|---|
| Importance | |
| organizational commitments (rather than individual commitments) | N/A |
| cost of Membership | N/A |
| not enough time to do the necessary work | N/A |
| face-to-face meetings cost too much or aren't worth it | N/A |
| parts of process inherently too slow (e.g., 4 weeks for charter review) | N/A |
| consensus-based approach burdensome | N/A |
| wide review requirement of process burdensome | N/A |
| implementation experience requirement of process burdensome | N/A |
| the community does not include people I know | N/A |
| differing view on what is important for the Web | N/A |
| differing view on Web Architecture | N/A |
| concern that particular technologies will be imposed (e.g., URIs, XML namespaces, RDF, ...) | N/A |
| competing technology suggests ideas will not be welcome | N/A |
| don't know the W3C process; seems complicated or time-consuming to learn | N/A |
| don't want to lose control of my work | N/A |
| copyright license not open enough | N/A |
| concerns about the W3C Royalty-Free Patent Policy | N/A |
| publications requirements burdensome | N/A |
| tooling or infrastructure not what I want | N/A |
| concerns about role of W3C Director in process (of assessing consensus) | N/A |
Details
| Responder | organizational commitments (rather than individual commitments) | cost of Membership | not enough time to do the necessary work | face-to-face meetings cost too much or aren't worth it | parts of process inherently too slow (e.g., 4 weeks for charter review) | consensus-based approach burdensome | wide review requirement of process burdensome | implementation experience requirement of process burdensome | the community does not include people I know | differing view on what is important for the Web | differing view on Web Architecture | concern that particular technologies will be imposed (e.g., URIs, XML namespaces, RDF, ...) | competing technology suggests ideas will not be welcome | don't know the W3C process; seems complicated or time-consuming to learn | don't want to lose control of my work | copyright license not open enough | concerns about the W3C Royalty-Free Patent Policy | publications requirements burdensome | tooling or infrastructure not what I want | concerns about role of W3C Director in process (of assessing consensus) | Additional barriers |
|---|
3. If you have already created an Incubator Group...
If you have already created an Incubator Group at W3C, please let us know the importance of the following considerations. This question is complementary to the previous questions on value proposition and barriers to participation.
Use the comment space below if there were other considerations.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| 1 | |
| work was not core Web standard, so Recommendation track was not thought to be appropriate | |
| wanted to publish on w3.org with W3C brand | |
| partners in our XG were already W3C Members | |
| individual participation perceived to be easier in an XG than in a WG | |
| faster to set up than a Working Group (which requires charter review by the Membership) |
Averages:
| Choices | All responders: |
|---|---|
| Importance | |
| work was not core Web standard, so Recommendation track was not thought to be appropriate | N/A |
| wanted to publish on w3.org with W3C brand | N/A |
| partners in our XG were already W3C Members | N/A |
| individual participation perceived to be easier in an XG than in a WG | N/A |
| faster to set up than a Working Group (which requires charter review by the Membership) | N/A |
Details
| Responder | work was not core Web standard, so Recommendation track was not thought to be appropriate | wanted to publish on w3.org with W3C brand | partners in our XG were already W3C Members | individual participation perceived to be easier in an XG than in a WG | faster to set up than a Working Group (which requires charter review by the Membership) | Other considerations for creating an Incubator Group |
|---|
4. Infrastructure
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 |
|---|---|
| 1 | |
| archived mailing lists / spam management | |
| blogs | |
| microblogs / status updates | |
| wikis | |
| teleconference bridges | |
| irc | |
| irc bots for connectivity with bridge, minutes | |
| issue / action tracking | |
| cvs (or other version control system) | |
| rss, atom feeds | |
| calendar feeds | |
| tool for accepting review comments | |
| tool for managing how review comments have been handledt | |
| test harness | |
| ability to publish on w3.org |
Averages:
| Choices | All responders: | |
|---|---|---|
| Importance | Satisfaction | |
| archived mailing lists / spam management | N/A | N/A |
| blogs | N/A | N/A |
| microblogs / status updates | N/A | N/A |
| wikis | N/A | N/A |
| teleconference bridges | N/A | N/A |
| irc | N/A | N/A |
| irc bots for connectivity with bridge, minutes | N/A | N/A |
| issue / action tracking | N/A | N/A |
| cvs (or other version control system) | N/A | N/A |
| rss, atom feeds | N/A | N/A |
| calendar feeds | N/A | N/A |
| tool for accepting review comments | N/A | N/A |
| tool for managing how review comments have been handledt | N/A | N/A |
| test harness | N/A | N/A |
| ability to publish on w3.org | N/A | N/A |
Details
| Responder | archived mailing lists / spam management | blogs | microblogs / status updates | wikis | teleconference bridges | irc | irc bots for connectivity with bridge, minutes | issue / action tracking | cvs (or other version control system) | rss, atom feeds | calendar feeds | tool for accepting review comments | tool for managing how review comments have been handledt | test harness | ability to publish on w3.org | Additional infrastructure |
|---|
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