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.


@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.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Octodon is a nice general purpose instance. more