Re: Early draft of new standards proposal

Hi Ian, All,

I finally scanned this document:
>     http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community
>    
Nice work, especially the table in section 2.2.7!

Below is my personal cut on the main properties of the three different 
groups/processes/objectives.

I recall arguing against XGs because I thought they were effectively IGs 
+ some steriods. I still think that is essentially true but if 
tweaking/revamping IGs and XGs would bring more communities in the W3C 
and eliminate various little islands with different processes, IP 
policies, etc., then that would be great.

-Regards, ArtB

= WG / Standardization

* Objective: create Recommendations
* W3C membership: required + IEs
* Interest level to create: 10+ Members
* Technology maturity level: some implementation and/or deployment 
experience required
* Resources: public mail list, member mail list, CVS/Mercurial, buzilla, 
wiki
* Publications: REC-track docs, WG Notes
* Team Resources: dedicated
* IP commitment: Yes
* Chair: appointed by Director
* Charter: requires AC review and approval by Director

= XG / Community Group / Pre-REC group

* Objective: create pre-Recommendation track documents e.g. 
requirements, use cases, etc.
* W3C membership: required + IEs
* Interest level to create: 3+Members
* Technology maturity level: no implementation or deployment experience 
required
* Resources: public mail list, CVS, wiki
* Publications: XG Notes
* Team Resources: none required
* IP commitment: No (XG Process currently allows both which effectively 
means there are 2 different types of XGs)
* Chair: appointed by the XG members
* Scope: W3C scope; competing/overlapping XGs permitted; may overlap 
with a chartered WG; may override/obsolete published Recommendations
* Charter: requires Team approval; AC notification of charter 
discussions; charter discussions conducted on public mail list

= IG / Discussion Group / New Idea Forum

* Objective: broad through in-depth discussions about some specific 
domain of the Web e.g. new technologies, social implications, etc.
* W3C membership: not required
* Interest level to create: 1+ Member
* W3C membership: required + IEs
* Interest level to create: 3+Members
* Technology maturity level: no implementation or deployment experience 
required
* Resources: public mail list, wiki
* Publications: wiki docs
* Team Resources: none required
* IP commitment: No
* Chair: appointed by the IG members
* Scope: W3C scope ("no holds barred")
* Charter: minimalist approach but requires Team approval; AC 
notification of charter discussions; charter discussions conducted on 
public mail list

Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 18:04:26 UTC