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

RE: Next Steps for W3C Coremob - Restatement of Options, Task Force Proposal - Last Call

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:08:26 +0000
To: Jo Rabin <jo@linguafranca.org>, "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <59A39E87EA9F964A836299497B686C3510A2A167@WABOTH9MSGUSR8D.ITServices.sbc.com>
Comments inline. Most of our input has been provided to the list several times so hopefully this will not be news but a summary.

In general we believe the CoreMob CG should continue and are committed to support it actively. See below for the details.

Bryan Sullivan 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rabin [mailto:jo@linguafranca.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:49 PM
To: public-coremob@w3.org
Subject: Next Steps for W3C Coremob - Restatement of Options, Task Force Proposal - Last Call

Hi Folks

I've asked for contributions on this topic to be made by this coming Sunday, and at that point my job as chair is to make an assessment of what the consensus is as to what to do next.

Here are the options:

a) Close the group down
b) Continue as a CG
<bryan> Our preference is to continue as a CG.

c) Continue as an IG

Both b) and c) will require rechartering. b) because the present charter is, in part at least, no longer relevant, since the testing agenda is now a separate initiative in W3C. You'll forgive me for not wishing to draft and propose a new charter if there is no will in the group to commit resource and to progress agendas that result in moving discussion forward.

<bryan> I believe at least from our corner that the "will to commit resource and to progress agendas" has been made pretty clear.

As I mentioned, at this stage I'd prefer to have a discussion about what the group will do, rather than the form it takes. But to repeat, I believe that  formulation as an IG will allow the group both to have the broad community engagement for which I share a desire, as well as having the benefit of more support from W3C.

<bryan> We value CG openness more than the W3C resource allocation. We believe that W3C resources should be applied to supporting WGs primarily, leaving the CGs to set the agenda in a more open manner (e.g. less W3C-guided; W3C staff are very adept at what they do but they can have a significant effect upon the dialog and resulting work program in groups - sometimes it would be better to be less "guided"... and as a side note: please don't take this personally or negatively, W3C staff... there is a time and place for everything, including active guidance).

So, please can you indicate on this list, or off-list to me, whether you (and your organisation) have an interest in contributing to one of the following suggested task forces. Now would also be the time to mention other areas of interest and agenda items that you think are pertinent. 

Here are 4 ideas about task forces:

A) Commercial

i) To look at priority areas to make the Web a more compelling platform for commerce, transactions and payments
ii) To make the Web a more compelling platform for monetization of content
iii) To make the costs of cross platform development and deployment more tractable

<bryan> I believe there are already other CGs focused on these areas. I recommend that CoreMob continue focus on mobile, more generically.

B) Mobile Context

i) To make the Web a more compelling platform for implementing mobile-specific use cases. Shopping, Transportation & Travel, Leisure ...
ii) To recognise the enduring gap in bandwidth, screen size, input methods and much else that will be encountered in a multi-channel Web

<bryan> Improving the mobile (or nomadic) service context remains our key goal for CoreMob. It affects the nature of the devices and the UI/UX provided by them, the plurality of user-agents and app development/deployment approaches (e.g. browser, widgets, hybrid, online/offline), resource/performance issues, etc. These are aspects that affect a large part of what users experience as the Web (or more generally internet-based services) since more users are experiencing the web on mobile/nomadic devices.

C) Closing the Gap

i) To progress our earlier work and lobby to accelerate work in W3C related to it
ii) To identify other areas represent priorities where the Web is uncompetitive with native
iii) To work on perception and outreach 
iv) To take items identified in the Headlight project of the same name, and progress them

<bryan> This is a part of (B). Addressing the gaps or unclarity in CoreMob 2012, and continuing to identify key gaps (CoreMob 2013 and beyond) and initiate work to close them, is one of our continuing goals for CoreMob. CoreMob 2012 is not done; we now have to live with it, as it represents part of our legacy and the reputation of W3C (Was it a worthwhile exercise? Was it precise/accurate enough? Did it have real effect? Was it worthwhile if limited to a one-off exercise?). W3C needs to ensure adequate follow-thru on work, and IMO the follow-thru on CoreMob 2012 is just beginning.


i) To identify areas where the Web has an inherent advantage over native
ii) To take a longer term view of what cross channel and multi channel mean
iii) To assess what techniques are required for practical cross channel implementation (including the meaning of "responsive")
iv) To identify missing technologies

<bryan> This seems like a broader and longer-term view topic likely interesting for another CG.

Like I say, please indicate your interest in any and all of the above.

Thanks in advance for your contributions.

Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 16:09:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:48 UTC