W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cg2wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: How to assess Community and Business group for transition?

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:02:13 -0400
Message-ID: <513F2755.3090601@w3.org>
To: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
CC: public-cg2wg@w3.org
On 3/11/2013 5:41 PM, Coralie Mercier wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> The primary output of this task force will be a recommendation for 
> which community or business group deliverables should move to the 
> Recommendation Track. How do we assess that?
>
> What are your ideas?
>
> I am looking forward to reading you on this list, so we can start 
> building a list.
> Preferably within this week and the next one.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Coralie
>
I think that at this stage, with >100 Community Groups and having run 
them for a year and a half, it is a good time to assess where we are 
with existing CGs.

I would recommend a WBS questionnaire sent to the Chairs of the CGs.  
For those that do not respond, we can follow-up 1-on-1.  For the more 
interesting responses, we might follow-up as well.  The questionnaire 
would ask the Chairs to assess the status of the CGs. Here are some 
sample questions.

1. Is your CG: (a) active and ongoing and nearing completion, (b) 
inactive because it has completed its work, (c) active and ongoing and 
far from completion (d) inactive because the original scope is no longer 
relevant or because the CG never got momentum.

2. Is the goal of your CG: (a) to provide a specification, (b) to be a 
discussion forum for specifications done elsewhere, (c) other (please 
specify).

I believe that for this exercise we are primarily interested in CGs of 
form 2(a); with greatest interest for those that also answered 1(a) or 
1(b).  I would request completion of question (3) from those CGs in 
those categories.

3. What is the status of the spec of your CG, vis-a-vis transitioning it 
to a Working Group?

(a) It (or key parts of the CG spec) have already transitioned to a WG.
(b) We plan to call attention to this spec within the next 6 months 
requesting that it be transitioned to a WG.
(c) Logically, it is a candidate to transition to a WG - but we haven't 
thought about it very much.
(d) We don't expect to transition to a WG for the following reasons 
(check all that apply):

  * Too early, not sufficient number of implementations yet.
  * Too narrow, not a key part of the Open Web Platform
  * A CG is good enough, WGs have too much beauracracy
  * We suspect that key players will not want to make WG patent commitments
  * Too many key players are not Members of W3C and would not want to
    follow the work into a WG.
  * Other (please specify)
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 13:02:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 12 March 2013 13:02:21 GMT