W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > May 2009

Re: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

From: Sharron Rush <srush@knowbility.org>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 14:16:58 -0500
To: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20090518184230.EB328582FF@prnetwtsv020.primusnetworks.com>
At 06:19 AM 5/18/2009, Jose M. Alonso wrote:
>* Do we want eGov Activity to hold more than one group? What for?
>   + every group would need a separate charter, deliverables, etc.

I agree that we should continue to operate under one charter and 
perhaps make the Task Force goals more explicit.  Also, create a 
clear structure for how the TF activities relate to each other.  If 
these grow to substantially different kinds of activities or 
diverging topics, we could consider forming charters for additional groups.

>* If we want current group alone:
>   + do we want it to publish normative stuff?
>     (we need a WG then)

Unsure about this...interested to hear group input.

>* What sort of deliverables do we want to produce?
>   + a new W3C recommendation?
>    (note that even BPs can be recs, such as MWBP [8])

Yes, recommendations most certainly should be one deliverable and 
MWBP is a good example.

>   + a set of small docs with guidance?
>    (could be recs or not)

I am not sure what these "small docs" would do that would not be 
included in BP and the rewritten Note, but am open to suggestion. Are 
you thinking of technical documents that would be more of a 
how-to?  a series of case studies of particularly effective 
practices?  The suite of ARIA documents could be a model, I 
suppose.  This one requires more consideration and could be decided 
after being chartered, is that not so?  or do we need to state our 
entire scope of work at the time of charter?

>   + a second version of the Note?
>    (no need to be a rec, as you know)

Yes, the Note must be rewritten for coherence, narrative flow, 
conclusions, etc.

>In summary: going normative is "stronger" but has more implications:
>patent policy matters, strongest coordination with other groups, more
>process-related stuff to deal with...

If we are saying that we will produce normative standards and expect 
eGov practitioners around the world to begin to claim "conformance" 
to these standards,  that is a mighty undertaking.  Think of the 
arduous processes around WCAG2 and HTML5.  Also, eGov is a bit less 
easily defined because of cultural influences, history, forms of 
government etc.  I would advise that we not commit to normative 
output at this time, but as previously stated, happy to hear another 
point of view.

Please let me know if this is the type of input needed and/or if I 
have overlooked any questions.

Thanks,
Sharron

>[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups#GAGeneral
>[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/eGov/ig-charter
>[4] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/05-patentsummary
>[5] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/AboutW3CSlides/images/groupProcess.png
>[6] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#Reports
>[7] http://www.w3.org/Guide/Charter
>[8] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/
>
>--
>Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>    W3C/CTIC
>eGovernment Lead                  http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.32/2119 - Release Date: 
>05/17/09 16:58:00
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 19:17:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 May 2009 19:17:38 GMT