W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-council@w3.org > September 2012

[wbs] response to 'Survey of W3C Community and Business Groups'

From: WBS Mailer on behalf of art.barstow@nokia.com <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 12:12:01 +0000
To: art.barstow@nokia.com,public-council@w3.org
Message-Id: <wbs-254014acbcad25c2e35f844f9e369b69@cgi.w3.org>
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Survey of W3C
Community and Business Groups' (public) for Arthur Barstow.

Overall Experience
Please rate your overall experience according to the following aspects:

 * Your overall experience with Community Groups and Business Groups.: [ No
opinion ] 
 * Have you found the Community Groups and Business Groups documentation
adequate (FAQ, policy summaries, etc.)?: [ No opinion ] 

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
Overall, I think the CG experiment has been very successful and I support
it continuing (it is certainly way mo' bett'a than the so-called "Incubator
Groups"). As an Advisory Committee rep, we had to create some new internal
policies regarding participation. This required a bit more ramp up overhead
than I expected. However, we are now over that hurdle and I think the
benefits are clear.

I am a member of six CGs. Some of them are doing nothing and should be
closed; others are making some progress. Given a CG may have an extremely
narrow scope or an almost unbounded scope, I think this diversity regarding
activity and progress is to be expected.

Here are some potential areas for CG improvement:

1. Clear Purpose and Scope - although it's good that CGs have the
flexibility to determine their own scope, work mode, etc., the diversity
can make difficult for an "outsider" to determine what exactly a CG is
doing. As such, I think it would be helpful is there was at least some
"normalization of CG home pages. In general, it sees like every CG home
page should include a clear (as possible) statement about its scope (and if
the scope changes, the statement updated accordingly). The scope should
include: why the group was created; the intended audience/participants;
enumerate the groups doing related work (e.g. other CGs, other WGs, other
SSOs, etc.); etc.

More specifically, when a CG home page is created, it should use a template
that includes placeholders for the above information as well as the

a. Participants' Expectations - every CG should document the roles and
expectations of the group's "leaders" (e.g. Chair(s), document Editors,
etc.) as well as the participation expectations for CG participants.

b. Work Mode - every CG should document the group's "work mode". For
example, the group is mail list only, the group will have f2f meetings, the
group will have IRC meetings, etc.

c. Decision Making - every CG should document how the group makes decision;
what if any role does consensus play

d. Milestones, Schedule & Plans - every CG should document what it expects
to "deliver" and when

e. Are We Done Yet? Requirement - every CG should document its life
expectancy plan. Leaving a CG open when it is no longer active is a bit
remiss and the CG's "leader(s)" (or the CG's creators if no leaders emerge)
should close the CG when it is done or no longer active. (IOW, the group's
leader(s) should periodically run the "if this CG closes, will anyone
notice?" test.)

2. There should be mail list to discuss topics that cross CGs e.g. how do
other CGs do X; what are other CGs doing to track issues, how can we have a
voice conference, etc. (If such a list already exists, please let me know
its name.)

3. Create a list for CG announcements. In particular I want to know when a
CG publishes a document/specification.

Re the questions about infrastructure, for CGs I think it's good enough "as
is". If some additional work is needed, I would rather see W3C staff
resources spent on advancing the OpenWebPlatform and let CGs figure how to
take care of their infra needs.

I haven't participated in any BGs so I have no comments about them.

Work Flow
Questions 4 through 9 focus on work flow.

Did you find it easy to discover groups of interest to you?

 * ( ) Yes
 * ( ) No

If not, why? (or any other comments): 

Group Type Comparison
If you have experience in both Working Group and Community or Business
Group, what advantages do you see for Working Groups? for Community or
Business Groups?

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 

How is your Community or Business Group organized to make decisions? Have
you reached decisions on challenging problems? We'd love to hear your
successes or obstacles you've faced.
Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 

Ensuring Progress
Are you satisfied with how the Community or Business Group makes progress?
What would enable you to make better progress?

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 

Transition to Working Group
Do you expect to advance Community or Business Group deliverables to a W3C
Working Group? Please use the comment field for any information about the
transition (time frame, perceived obstacles or challenges).

 * ( ) Yes
 * ( ) No
 * ( ) In discussion but not decided
 * ( ) No idea

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 

Process, Patent and Copyright Policy, Contribution Agreements
Do you have any suggestions for changes to the
Community Groups and Business Groups process,
Contributor Agreement, or
Final Specification Agreement that would facilitate participation?
Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 

Overall User Interface
Please rate the usability of the following aspects:

 * The home page of your Community or Business Group: [ No opinion ] 
 * Other parts of the Community and Business Group Web site.: [ No opinion

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 

User Accounts
Please rate the usability of any of the following actions you carried out.

 * Requesting an account (if you did so just for Community Groups and
Business Groups): [ No opinion ] 
 * Updating your affiliation in your account (if you were asked to do so):
[ No opinion ] 

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 

Joining a Group
Please, select the case that applies to you and comment on your experience
joining a group (via the click-through form).

 * ( ) I joined as a W3C Member employee, my request was processed by my
organization's Advisory Committee Representative
 * ( ) I joined as a non-W3C Member employee, after getting my
organization's patent and copyright commitment
 * ( ) I joined as an individual, unaffiliated with any organization

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 

Creating a Group
If you created a group, rate the usability of the following aspects:

 * Clarity of the process for proposing a group: [ No opinion ] 
 * Clarity of the process by which people express support for a group: [ No
opinion ] 

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 

Group Operations
Rate the usability of any of the following operations you have carried out.

 * Choosing a chair (via checkboxes on the participants page): [ No opinion
 * Publishing a draft specification (available to Chairs only): [ No
opinion ] 
 * Publishing a final specification (available to Chairs only): [ No
opinion ] 
 * Making a final specification commitment (through the click-through
form): [ No opinion ] 

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 

Suggestion Box
What can we do to improve the experience of participating in a Community
Group or Business Group, tools you would find useful, or changes to enable
you to work more effectively?

To help W3C spread the word about Community and Business Groups, we invite
you to provide a 1-paragraph testimonial about your Community Group or
Business Group experience that you authorize us to publicize. This is
purely optional.
Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 

These answers were last modified on 9 September 2012 at 12:11:23 U.T.C.
by Arthur Barstow

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/2012CGBGsurvey/ until 2012-09-30.


 The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Sunday, 9 September 2012 12:12:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 2 October 2015 04:34:54 UTC