Relationship with the World Wide Web Foundation

[Sylvain Hellegouarch]

Hi everyone,

I was just reading through the announcement of the World Wide Web
Foundation [1] and I was wondering what could be the relationship between
the WWWF and the OWF? From my understanding they don't directly compete
with each other but probably could work together to a certain degree.
Anyway, any feedback is appreciated.

- Sylvain

[1]
http://www.webfoundation.org/news/2008/09/welcome-to-the-world-wide-web-foundation.html

--
Sylvain Hellegouarch
http://www.defuze.org

[DeWitt Clinton]

Agreed that they don't compete.  Sounds like we're on the same side in that we all believe in the power of the web, though.

The Open Web Foundation is simply a collection of like-minded volunteers attempting to apply an open source approach to building open web technologies.  The OWF is made up of all of us right here -- just a few passionate and dedicated individuals on a mailing list trying to get some work done.   This is as stripped-down and grass-roots as you can get, and we like it that way.   Heck, we've even talked about capping the maximum donation from any entity at $5k just to avoid the challenges that a big budget would bring.   None of us here have any pretensions about the OWF being anywhere near the same league the W3C or the new World Wide Web Foundation.

Whereas the World Wide Web Foundation is a multi-national (non-profit?) corporation launched with a $5M seed grant, seeking to raise a $50-$100M endowment.  With those kinds of resources they could do things that the OWF would never be able to approach -- hire full-time staff, connection companies and NGO's, lobby governments, fund other projects, etc.  I'm not sure what their concrete goals are, but I do know that's an entirely different end of the spectrum, and I personally wish the WWWF all the success in the world in making the open web better.

Also, as I've always said, the OWF only exists because it needs to exist right now.  The goal is not to build something sustainable for its own sake, but rather something that can tackle a few hard problems that no one else has dealt with yet, such as creating a reusable open IPR policy for specifications, and helping promote a development model that is inclusive of the individual contributor that doesn't have the backing of a big company.  There's still a lot left to be done there, so I'm not even thinking about what happens beyond that.

The usual caveat applies: this is just one guy's opinion about the OWF.  I'd love to hear yours.

Cheers,

-DeWitt

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

First, I find it amusing that their last FAQ is:

Is this organization related to the Open Web Foundation?
No.

I can't figure out what is the difference between web technologies
developed by the current standard bodies and communities and "advance
One Web that is free and open, to expand the Web's capability and
robustness". If this is political, as in China's censorship of the
web, it really belongs in a wider context. If it is about third world
access to the web, I would worry first about them having access to
computers and phone lines. Seems odd to ask for money, and a lot of
it, with so little detail as to what this organization is about?

We've been asked many times why a new org, and I think it is fair to
ask it back. Seems to me that most of this should/could be done within
the W3C. If the W3C is no longer able to promote its own mission, it
raises the question: should the same leadership be trusted to run a
new effort that seems to try and fix what their first effort failed to
accomplish?

"The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) develops interoperable
technologies (specifications, guidelines, software, and tools) to lead
the Web to its full potential. W3C is a forum for information,
commerce, communication, and collective understanding". How is that
different from the "One Web" (is this because we "stole" Open Web?)
and "expand[ing] the Web's capability and robustness"?

EHL

> >http://www.webfoundation.org/news/2008/09/welcome-to-the-world-wide-w...

[Chris Messina]

I'm with the spirit of Dewitt's sentiment. The more support and advocacy the Open, One-True Web has, the better (are they worried about a competitor web springing up?).

Obviously they're still in the early phases:

 

The promise of the Foundation is to accelerate the Web's advancement and growth around the planet. It is pretty exciting to be a part of it. We are still in the planning phase, and I expect to use this blog to share more information as we progress towards a full launch in early 2009.

This paper might help provide more of the vision:

http://www.webfoundation.org/about/concept2008

Also, from TBL's speech:

My colleagues and I have identified three avenues — technology innovation, Web Science, and the application of the Web for the benefit of underserved communities — that we believe lead to the next phase of the Web.

All in all, it sounds pretty reasonable and somewhat more ambitious (and currently vague) then our efforts to simply build a legal and collaboration framework for working on open specifications through the grassroots community ecosystem.

Chris

--
Chris Messina
Citizen-Participant &
 Open Source Advocate-at-Large
factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

I don’t think there is much in common in terms of actions between the OWF and the WWWF. I don’t know what the One Web means (the Matrix?) but it sounds like creating a problem where there isn’t any. I think they have the responsibility to be very clear where the lines are between technology and tools, to political advocacy and social research. My issue is with that perceived overlap between the W3C and WWWF.

Tim Berners-Lee has obviously earned his leadership role, and I have a lot of respect for him and his work. But that only enforces my view that launching such a high profile initiative, with so much money involved, should be made with a much clearer purpose and differentiator.

EHL