W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-oilgaschem@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Draft Charter "Completed"

From: Roger Cutler <rogercutler@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:54:24 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMU31A6PNr4QaUyPSTaoFsMD-rtWpE8F-sf6A2jaDAXXdpRhow@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-oilgaschem@w3.org
Added a section on "Web Sites" under "Communications" that discusses
"Business Group Reports" and the Wiki.  This section is particularly
uncertain because I don't think that the W3C processes in these areas have
really jelled.

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Roger Cutler <rogercutler@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have roughed out a more-or-less complete draft charter<http://www.w3.org/community/oilgaschem/wiki/Oil,_Gas_and_Chemicals_Business_Group_Charter>for the Oil, Gas and Chemicals Business Group.  Comments and suggestions
> are most welcome, and in fact you can get into the Wiki page and edit it
> yourself.  As previously stated, however, if you do edit the charter it
> would be friendly to send me (and this discussion group) an email
> indicating in a general way "what" was done and if relevant "why".  There
> is no intention at this time to limit your editing -- I just want to be
> able to keep track of what's going on without digging through the change
> logs.  I say "at this time" because I think that the group could decide to
> define an "editor" function that has more control over certain documents,
> and in fact if we start developing deliverable documents I personally think
> that this might turn out to be desirable simply from a logistic point of
> view.  That's pretty much consistent with the way I think most WG's and
> IG's do things in the W3C, and probably with processes in most other
> collaboration environments.  [Ian:  Should this discussion go into the
> charter?]
>
> Note that the list of potential topics in the Scope section is pretty
> rough.  Help is particularly requested in this area, which one might
> actually consider the "meatiest" section of the charter.
>
> The most significant lack is probably in the "Dependencies and Liaisons"
> section.  It seems to me that it might be a good idea to make a separate
> page in the Wiki for this, particularly to document the various industry
> consortia and what kind of connection they have with Semantic Web
> technology.  At the moment, however, I'm tired of typing.
>
> Note that there is a separate Why Work in This Venue<http://www.w3.org/community/oilgaschem/wiki/Why_Work_in_This_Venue>wiki page which is linked from the mission section of the charter.
>
> Ian:  You probably should read this draft fairly carefully.  I have
> included some statements that I *think* are consistent with W3C process,
> but I'm not positive.  Note particularly the discussion of "Contributions"
> in the Communications section.  I think that this is consistent with the
> spirit of the definition of BG's and CG's, but I was unable to find any
> statements on this that were completely clear to me.  If this section is *
> not* OK I think we need to work this issue.  I hope it's clear to you
> what my concerns here are.  Note also that I am using the words
> "contributions" and "submissions" pretty much interchangeably, and I'm not
> sure whether that's OK either.
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 17:55:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 December 2011 17:55:02 GMT