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.

@cwebber is there something we can do to improve W3c?

@maloki I don't know, though to better understand the problem I recommend reading manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalanci

The problem with this kind of corporate sponsorship is it can allow for compromised positions that never would have been taken otherwise, like dustycloud.org/blog/drm-will-u

@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.


@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.

· · Web · 2 · 1 · 2

@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.

Something with transparency built in at core level, e.g. similar to idea behind (or even using) Open Collective..



Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!