W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hypertext-cg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Comments on HCG draft charter

From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:23:52 +0100
Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, public-hypertext-cg <public-hypertext-cg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6BAD6A2D-2667-4FE8-9A95-E9D15B7DDAE4@robineko.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Hi,

On Mar 8, 2011, at 17:50 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
> I just scanned the HCG's draft charter <http://www.w3.org/2011/02/HCG/charter.html> and have some comments:

+1 to all that Art said.

> 4. Rather than explicitly identify some of the W3C Groups as "(Public)" (and some are missing that tag such as WebApps), perhaps tagging should just go the hopefully very small set of WGs that are still Private/Member.

DAP is also not listed as public.

DAP's description seems to have pasted from what people thought the MWI would be in the XXth century.

Pardon my ignorance, but do we still have a Forms WG? Its charter lists it as having expired in 2009.

Do we expect the SYMM WG to last beyond its current extension which runs out at the end of the month? It's not important but I not that its WG page states that it's the "3nd" SYMM WG :)

The TTWG is also marked as having expired in 2009. This made me think that perhaps charters should be required to mention extensions, and that all closed groups should have a message clearly saying so on their home page.

WebCGM expires at the end of next month, will it be renewed?

Conversely, a flurry of new groups (notifications, performance, audio, real time) have been or are being chartered that should probably be listed.

I'm not aware that we have any coordination with any of the organisations listed. Some individual groups may (e.g. I'm guessing WebCGM talks to ISO and TT to ATSC) but those aren't CG-level. As far as I can see ECMA is the only one, though maybe we should include Khronos as well.

Just because pedantry is universally enjoyable, given that bi-weekly is ambiguous, should we say fortnightly?

"When the Co-chair put a question" -> Co-chairs. Later it becomes "Co-Chairs".

"possibly after a formal vote" I'm curious as to how that would work. I don't have time to perform an in-depth analysis but it doesn't seem entirely clear from the Process. In such a vote Members can only have at most one vote, but this doesn't seem appropriate. Also, Good Standing normally applies but it's not considered relevant in CGs. More importantly, it would probably be a very daft thing to do anyway. I'd recommend we remove this mention. If we disagree with the CG consensus we'll simply make snide comments on Twitter, as usual.

--
Robin Berjon
  robineko  hired gun, higher standards
  http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 17:24:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 March 2011 17:24:24 GMT