From W3C Wiki
< AB
(Redirected from W3C AB 2013 2014 OLD PAGE)

Much of this content was on the AB’s home page in the 2013-2014 era


2014-2015 AB Priorities


W3C Process

  • Status: DONE for 2013-2014 ✅

W3C process improvements are discussed in the community group:

See process for more details.

W3C Chairs Training

  • Status: DONE for 2013-2014 ✅

The Advisory Board has established Chair Training as a priority for 2014. At TPAC2013, Chairs had a breakfast meeting and expressed what additional information and skills they required to improve their effectiveness. The W3C Team developed a list of areas which have now evolved into a quarterly Chair Training program.

  • 1. W3C, Process, and the W3C Team, Philippe Le Hegaret, 23 January 2014
  • 2. Tools, Ralph Swick, 24 April 2014
  • 3. The Human Dimension, Charles McCathie Nevile, 17 June 2014
  • 4. Focus and Productivity, Arnaud Le Hors, 23 October 2014
  • 5. New W3C process, its philosophy, and how to use it for agility, Steve Zilles, January 2015
  • 6. TBC: Making rapid progress in developing specs in W3C despite the W3C process

Use of GitHub at W3C

  • Status: DONE for 2013-2014 ✅

Dogfooding at W3C

  • Status: DONE for 2013-2014 ✅

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[1][2] (and criticism for using non-open-web technologies to do so [3][4])

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:

  1. Highly technical contributors who are actively designing and specifying advancement of the web platform
  2. Semi-technical contributors who have some understanding (can write HTML), but have challenges
  3. General contributors who are discussing customer needs, use-cases

We should be dogfooding and improving tools from top to bottom in this spectrum.


Workshop communication:

  • 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.
  • Blog posts criticising of workshop structure/defaults:

Tool Requests:

  • 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

Open AB

  • Status: DONE for 2013-2014 ✅

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:

Remote Participation

  • Status: DONE for 2013-2014 ✅

The AB is looking at issues related to remote participation in W3C meetings.


Trademark License

  • Status: DONE for 2013-2014 ✅
Main article: AB/trademark-license

The AB has created a Trademark License task force (Tantek Çelik and Michael Champion) to build broad consensus on a combination trademark / license policy to potentially permit more permissive copyright licenses on W3C drafts and specifications.

Related Projects

  • Status: DONE for 2013-2014 ✅

Not official AB projects per say, but projects that various AB members are participating in that may have W3C-wide scope.

Twitter Account

  • Status: DONE for 2013-2014 ✅

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.

If you are a member of the AB, contact Tantek Çelik on a secure communications channel and he'll gladly share access to @W3CAB.

  • 2013-09-18 access broadly shared with AB members in person W3C AB meeting at MIT.
  • 2013-06-04 @W3CAB Twitter created.


  • Status: DONE for 2013-2014 ✅

Suggestions for the AB.

Minor Process Tweaks

  • Status: DEPRECATED for 2013-2014 ❎

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)
    • Agreed. I'll see what I can do to help this along. - Tantek Çelik 14:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Inter-W3C-spec normative referencing policy is apparently not an explicit part of the Process Document. See CG W3Process issue 33 for more info/updates on this. - Tantek Çelik 14:54, 8 July 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

  • Status: DONE for 2013-2014 ✅
  • 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) ~~~~

Voting Options

  • Status: DEPRECATED for 2013-2014 ❎

There are two options that the AB should look at:

  1. Get someone to propose some alternatives (such as a CG). The group developing the alternative would prepare material to explain why the alternative is better and try to build a consensus within the AB/AC. Once that is done, it would be sent to a formal vote.
  2. Run an experiment three times. In this experiment there would be three voting options.
    • Current method.
    • Preferential voting
    • Each AC rep gets one vote

There would also be a question asking the voters which method is (a priori) their favorite.

The current method decides the winner of the election. The other methods are simply for information.

The results of the election would be known only by the team. There would be a specific set of questions developed in advance which the team answers relative to the results of the elections, and the team would share only that information.

For this to work, the alternative must be developed and communicated well in advance. If we were to use it for the fall TAG election, it would be necessary to have a draft proposal in time for the July AB call (21 July). The main items required for this are:

  • Selection of STV options - require votes for all candidates or not, allow ranking equally (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 3, 5 or its equivalent 1, 2, 3, 3, 4)
  • Specific questions which will be answered
  • Communications plan

See FAQ and explanation for the first experiment page


  • Status: DONE for 2013-2014 ✅

Upcoming meetings

Taxi sharing for f2f meetings is organized on the wiki: MeetingTaxis

More: https://www.w3.org/Member/Board/ (W3C Member Only Link)


  • Status: DONE for 2013-2014 ✅

Past f2f meetings:

Editing and Publishing the minutes of AB Meetings

  • Status: DONE for 2013-2014 ✅

Quote from the summary of 3-4 November 2011 AB face-to-face meeting (W3C Member only link):

The Advisory Board, recognizing that the IRC minutes are not a verbatim transcription, adopted a protocol by which each speaker can have their recorded statements edited when he or she feels that what is recorded is either incorrect or needs clarification.

Other AB participants can ask a participant to clarify his or her remarks, but cannot insist on a change.

The protocol is to send requests in e-mail to the AB list, as the only mechanism to change the minutes generated from the IRC record. The goal is to increase both transparency and coherence.

Pages to process

Historical AC/AB related pages that should be processed for any outstanding actions, and edited/moved to indicate their historical state, and link to any present/current efforts on the same topics


  • Status: DONE for 2013-2014 ❎

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)


See Also