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

RE: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 23:34:02 -0400
To: "'Sharron Rush'" <srush@knowbility.org>, "'eGov IG'" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-id: <007201c9d832$aab0fce0$0012f6a0$@Ambur@verizon.net>
I agree that it would be good if we could make our goals, objectives, and
stakeholders (both performers and intended beneficiaries) more explicit.

It also seems to me that the term "normative" is overused and tends to be
somewhat meaningless.  All that truly matters is whether the darn thing is
of any use to anyone.  Calling it "normative" versus "informative" doesn't
seem to add much, if any, value in that regard.

If we can see not only how something can be useful to us but also how we can
actually use it, we are likely to do so.  If not, it is unlikely that we
will, and if someone tries to tell us we "must," our primary reaction is
likely to be resentment, followed by passive (subconscious), if not active
resistance.

There is much to be said for "voluntary consensus" standards, not merely in
the policy of the U.S. federal government (OMB Circular A-119) but also in
practice and results.

BTW, the only mandate in Part 1 of the emerging StratML standard is that at
least one goal must be named and described in order for a document to be
considered a StratML document.  Hopefully, most folks will agree that it is
also good practice to identify stakeholders and associate them not only with
longer-term goals but also shorter-term objectives.  If not (i.e., if
StratML does not achieve voluntary consensus standard status), at least no
one will be the worse for it (and we will not have deluded ourselves in the
meantime by thinking that we have the power to force others to do things
they do not perceive to be in their own best interest).

Owen

-----Original Message-----
From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Sharron Rush
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 3:17 PM
To: eGov IG
Subject: Re: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

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 Tuesday, 19 May 2009 03:35:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 May 2009 03:35:22 GMT