W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Personal observations of working group style and process

From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:51:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4DFFA4AA.2080707@gmail.com>
To: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi All,

I would refer everyone to my note from earlier today on process

- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Jun/0317.html

I think the process that Graham articulates is the approach Luc and I as 
chairs have outlined. But before we can iterate on a draft we need one.

I would also say that the group has a limited framework for what should 
be in the draft of the conceptual model namely the concepts outlined in 
the charter. These are not that many and known to be useful.

Importantly, the group has to work by consensus. We need to agree on at 
least some definitions to start. But my observation has been that the 
group has often wanted to debate intricacies. This is perfectly 
appropriate but often takes time. Personally, I would prefer to have 
simple common sensical definitions. However, that often seems not to be 
compelling enough.

I believe however we are converging on a  model. We have an agreement on 
thing and many of the properties of process execution. We also have an 
agreement around process specifications. We are working towards 
agreement on generation and use. Once we have this we can put this in a 
more accessible form.

Paul


Deus, Helena wrote:
>>>   On reflection, and considering my past experience in standards work, I find my
> personal view is that an agile mindset is actually more relevant to standards
> creation than it is to software development.
>
> I've had the same experience!
>
>>> If we can quickly pull together the simplest possible set of specification
> drafts that we can possibly imagine as addressing at least some of our goals, we
> can publish them and solicit feedback.  That way, we stand a chance of learning
> what we're missing that other people really want.  By keeping the drafts really
> simple, we minimize the risk of describing something that no user really wants
> (and in the same stroke, we maximize the chance of their being read and actually
> getting feedback).  Then iterate.
>
> I agree this is the most productive way of achieving meaningful results; thank you for articulating this so clearly, Graham :-)
>
> Best,
> Lena
>
>
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 19:51:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:31 GMT