• +1 - I support this
• 0 - I am neutral
• -1 - I don't support this

I support OWEA becoming a W3C Activity

Glenda Sims +1

Aarron Walter +1

Ben Friedman +1

Lars Gunther +1

Leslie Jensen-Inman +1

Aaron Gustafson +1

Scott Fegette +1

Stephanie Troeth +1

Doug Schepers +1

Terry Morris +1

Mark DuBois +1

Kazuhito Kidachi 0

Chris Mills 0 - as yet undecided. I support this in principle, but I have one question/concern. As we have discussed, because of the pragmatic nature of our course we will in the future probably be including some material covering proprietary closed standards such as Flash and Silverlight. If we do become a W3C activity, will we still be able to do this, given W3C's position on proprietary closed standards?

Jeff Brown +1

Virginia DeBolt +1

Dave McFarland 0 - I agree with Chris. I guess it comes down to exactly what the goals of OWEA are. Is OWEA trying to promote the use of W3C standards in Web Development, or to promote the teaching of industry best practices in Web Dev, which often includes things outside the domain of the W3C and which, as Chris mentions, may include proprietary technology. And if we do promote things outside W3C standards, is that OK with the W3C?

Nick Fogler 0 - seconding Chris’s concerns

Discussion: W3C and non-W3C content

I think Chris brings up a very important point. Personally, I think our mission is to teach best practices and specifications for web tech, regardless of origin. This counts for Flash (Adobe), JavaScript (ECMA), Microformats (various), PHP (various), Python (various), Ruby on Rails (various), etc. It's not all under the auspices of W3C, but this all falls into the mission of OWEA. I think the most important thing is remaining vendor-neutral and, as we said in our in-person, keeping the framework open enough for people to build courses based on the concepts rather than the language/tool ("animation" as opposed to "Flash" or "Silverlight", "web programming" as opposed to "PHP", etc.). -- Aaron Gustafson