This article is a stub. You can help the W3C wiki by expanding it.
The AB refers to the W3C Advisory Board.
- 1 Projects
- 2 Twitter Account
- 3 Suggestions
- 4 Meetings
- 5 Background
- 6 Resources
- 7 See Also
W3C process improvements are discussed in the community group:
See process for more details.
Use of Github at W3C
- See Github.
Cultural conventions for attribution
The new HTMLWG charter allows for working group members to contribute HTML5 Extension specifications using CC-by, and then places attribution requirements on any derivative works.
These attribution requirements are a good start for growing cultural conventions for attribution both inside W3C, and beyond W3C, towards a goal of making attribution founded in cultural norms rather than legal (copyright) requirements, potentially allowing for use of CC0 for contributions to W3C in the future.
Dogfooding at W3C
Many (most?) presentations at W3C workshops (e.g. the Workshop on Social Standards: The Future of Business) used non-open-web technologies/formats.
A challenge was made to the participants to use HTML for their presentations proposing additions/technologies for the web platform (and criticism for using non-open-web technologies to do so )
The broader challenge is to use openweb technologies in our day to day interactions at and with W3C, with such use-cases as:
- Presentations (slide formats / online slides)
- Remote collaboration (e.g. use of WebRTC / webcasting instead of phones)
There is a spectrum of W3C members that can be more/less expected to adopt and use open web technologies:
- Highly technical contributors who are actively designing and specifying advancement of the web platform
- Semi-technical contributors who have some understanding (can write HTML), but have challenges
- General contributors who are discussing customer needs, use-cases
We should be dogfooding and improving tools from top to bottom in this spectrum.
- We need to document existing openweb tools to make it easier for knowledgable and motivated individuals to use openweb tools more often. e.g. HTML presentation frameworks out there:
- We should request that W3C workshop participants use openweb platform tools
- HTML-based presentations, posted on the web at a permalink, with varying emphasis per the spectrum:
- MUST: Technical contributors advocating specific technical advancements to the platform must use HTML and other openweb platform technologies.
- SHOULD: Contributors who consider themselves technical should try using HTML for their presentations, and at least report back what difficulties they experience.
- ENCOURAGED: All other workshop participants should be encouraged to learn HTML, and attempt creating HTML content, or saving their non-open-web presentations in HTML form.
- We should document where openweb tools fall down, where they are difficult etc. as compared to non-open-web technologies/formats, and what we need from openweb tools. E.g.
- Web-based graphical user interface to create and edit presentations and slides
- Even just simple styled text
- Maybe with one image embedded on a slide
The AB is working on (as is evident by this wiki page) doing more and more of its work in the open.
Currently Open AB work is occurring in two places:
- http://www.w3.org/wiki/AB (this wiki page - see "Suggestions" section below to contribute)
The AB is looking at issues related to remote participation in W3C meetings.
- See: Headlights2014
The Advisory Board has a Twitter account: @W3CAB
Nearly the entire AB has access and can post anything regarding AB-related matters. The methodology is to empower individual responsibility and trust by default, especially in such a small group. This method has worked well with the CSSWG (any CSSWG member may "have the keys" to @CSSWG) and it's been hugely successful in engaging the broader developer community.
- 2013-09-18 access broadly shared with AB members in person W3C AB meeting at MIT.
- 2013-06-04 @W3CAB Twitter created.
Suggestions for the AB.
Minor Process Tweaks
The Process document hasn't really been maintained in many years. There's talk of overhauling the Process, but meanwhile, how about making some simple changes that address particularly frustrating points in the Process?
- Allowing REC to refer to CR (treating PR as a transitional phase, like LC). fantasai 04:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Creating a "Proposed Edited Candidate Recommendation" stage (or pick a better name) to allow CRs to be updated without going back to Working Draft. This would be identical to LC--just a renaming of an existing process--so qualifies as a Dead Simple Change. fantasai 04:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- What about simply combining LC and CR, and allowing a document in that phase to be updated and stay at that phase? - Tantek Çelik 14:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Making sure the ABs get members opinion
- AB are elected by W3C members and need to make sure that they are collecting their ideas, suggestion... That wiki is great, the recent minutes members-only minutes issued by Coralie were great, but regular open debriefing communication to members/interested parties is key. It could be interesting to have an every-6-months call scheduled in advance to 'meet the AB'. This would be the opportunity to ask direct question to the AB, based on a collaborative agenda.
Virginie Galindo (gemalto AC rep) ~~~~
Add Your Suggestion Here ...
and sign it with ~~~~ (four tildas)
Taxi sharing for meetings is organized on the wiki: MeetingTaxis
Background about this page.
I (Tantek Çelik) ran for the AB on a platform of greater openness in how we do things. As part of that, feel free to add your suggestions for improving the AB and W3C Process as a whole here and I'll see what I can about them. I'm going to encourage other AB members to similarly consider using input from the wiki as another source. Thanks, - Tantek Çelik 04:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)