A lot of people find out that the W3C's governance is fucked up and overly dependent on corporate sponsorship (and it is) and then assume that the WHATWG must be a better institution (it isn't).
WHATWG is, for the most part, a "what-the-major-browser-vendors-say/do-rules" org. And keep in mind, that's now just two organizations (Google and Mozilla). That's good reason for pause.
The problem with this kind of corporate sponsorship is it can allow for compromised positions that never would have been taken otherwise, like https://dustycloud.org/blog/drm-will-unravel-the-web/
@maloki I've long been interested in a hacker/community-oriented standards org. IETF is the closest we have, but isn't quite that. Though one thing the W3C does have is its patent non-aggression policy, and the reason that works is that it's able to bring a bunch of corporate participants to the table. I don't think a hacker standards org could do that. (There's also some government groups that will only accept work that come from "official" standards groups.)
Maybe it's still worth trying.
@cwebber Hmm... Yeah I'm not sure either or.
I just know I want to be part in building the Ethical Web.
@maloki Anyway, in order for such an org to work, it would have to have a plan for funding and governance from day 0 that informs the desired structure. I don't know what that would be. It wouldn't be easy to set up, I think.
@maloki Also a lot of the staff at standards orgs are paid to do what is, quite frankly, boring but necessary stuff. And we probably *would* have to pay people to do that.
Might be an idea we're interested to promote in future. Just started a reorg at HTC around "Pyramids of Humane Technology". One pyramid is Technology Alignment - alignment to humans; tech serving us, not vice-versa. The approach is optimistic, solution-oriented, not the usual doom & gloom.
@bhaugen thank you for sharing. It's interesting stuff on there.