W3C WBS Home

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:

  1. W3C Value Proposition
  2. Barriers to Participation
  3. If you have already created an Incubator Group...
  4. 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

ChoiceAll 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:
ImportanceSatisfaction
international communityN/AN/A
vendor neutralityN/AN/A
royalty-free patent policyN/AN/A
processN/AN/A
connectivity with IT industryN/AN/A
connectivity with research communitiesN/AN/A
liaisons with governmentsN/AN/A
liaisons with other standards bodiesN/AN/A
reputation / track record / Tim Berners-lee visibilityN/AN/A
w3c is where that technology is being developedN/AN/A
infrastructure (list archives, IRC, teleconference services, wikis, blogs, etc.)N/AN/A
quality control through reviews by other communities (technical architecture group, WAI, Internationalization, etc.)N/AN/A
principles for the Web (open, available to all, on any device, etc.)N/AN/A
principles for operations (consensus-driven, public accountability, etc.)N/AN/A
full-time technical staff (helping to coordinate work, participating in group discussions, sharing institutional experience, ...)N/AN/A
communications and marketing staffN/AN/A
relevance of current W3C workN/AN/A

Details

Responder 1Other 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

ChoiceAll 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 MembershipN/A
not enough time to do the necessary workN/A
face-to-face meetings cost too much or aren't worth itN/A
parts of process inherently too slow (e.g., 4 weeks for charter review)N/A
consensus-based approach burdensomeN/A
wide review requirement of process burdensomeN/A
implementation experience requirement of process burdensomeN/A
the community does not include people I knowN/A
differing view on what is important for the WebN/A
differing view on Web ArchitectureN/A
concern that particular technologies will be imposed (e.g., URIs, XML namespaces, RDF, ...)N/A
competing technology suggests ideas will not be welcomeN/A
don't know the W3C process; seems complicated or time-consuming to learnN/A
don't want to lose control of my workN/A
copyright license not open enoughN/A
concerns about the W3C Royalty-Free Patent PolicyN/A
publications requirements burdensomeN/A
tooling or infrastructure not what I wantN/A
concerns about role of W3C Director in process (of assessing consensus)N/A

Details

Responder organizational commitments (rather than individual commitments)cost of Membershipnot enough time to do the necessary workface-to-face meetings cost too much or aren't worth itparts of process inherently too slow (e.g., 4 weeks for charter review)consensus-based approach burdensomewide review requirement of process burdensomeimplementation experience requirement of process burdensomethe community does not include people I knowdiffering view on what is important for the Webdiffering view on Web Architectureconcern that particular technologies will be imposed (e.g., URIs, XML namespaces, RDF, ...)competing technology suggests ideas will not be welcomedon't know the W3C process; seems complicated or time-consuming to learndon't want to lose control of my workcopyright license not open enoughconcerns about the W3C Royalty-Free Patent Policypublications requirements burdensometooling or infrastructure not what I wantconcerns 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

ChoiceAll 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 appropriateN/A
wanted to publish on w3.org with W3C brandN/A
partners in our XG were already W3C MembersN/A
individual participation perceived to be easier in an XG than in a WGN/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 appropriatewanted to publish on w3.org with W3C brandpartners in our XG were already W3C Membersindividual participation perceived to be easier in an XG than in a WGfaster 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

ChoiceAll 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:
ImportanceSatisfaction
archived mailing lists / spam managementN/AN/A
blogsN/AN/A
microblogs / status updatesN/AN/A
wikisN/AN/A
teleconference bridgesN/AN/A
ircN/AN/A
irc bots for connectivity with bridge, minutesN/AN/A
issue / action trackingN/AN/A
cvs (or other version control system)N/AN/A
rss, atom feedsN/AN/A
calendar feedsN/AN/A
tool for accepting review commentsN/AN/A
tool for managing how review comments have been handledtN/AN/A
test harnessN/AN/A
ability to publish on w3.orgN/AN/A

Details

Responder 1Additional infrastructure

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

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire


Completed and maintained by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org) on an original design by Michael Sperberg-McQueen $Id: showv.php3,v 1.123 2013-09-26 09:46:56 dom Exp $. Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to dom@w3.org with w3t-sys@w3.org copied (if your mail client supports it, send mail directly to the right persons)