W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vision-newstd@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Updated task force proposal; comments welcome

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:32:04 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <37ada30c145d9c3b5f71a1c69b73a78a.squirrel@webmail-mit.w3.org>
To: ij@w3.org
Cc: public-vision-newstd@w3.org
I think we should be very upfront about articulating the value proposition
of this proposal. So add as an intro:

"As the massive success Web has grown exponentially quickly, the W3C needs
to remain the place for new standards. In order to accomplish this, the
W3C should crowd-source new standardization and innovation from the entire
Web, not just the Team and Members. This community-driven process should
allow experimental proposals from anywhere on the Web to percolate in a
bottom-up fashion into a W3C Recommendations standards process, allowing
both a high amount of maturity and backing for new W3C Recommendation work
and decentralizing the workload for the Team and Members."

More open process = Less work and better standards

(well, I hope!)


2.1 and 2.1.4 "New Ideas Forum"

I'd suggest that we aren't looking for *all new ideas* related to the Web,
that might result in an overload of crazy people. I'm thinking maybe call
it the "New Standards Forum@.

-   Question: Suggest small number of moderators; how are they chosen?
Staff? -> Just have one or more Team Contacts for New Ideas/Standards
Forum. The term "moderator" may be a bit harsh for some people, although
that is what they will be doing. Maybe let them recruit volunteers.

- 2.1.5 Add a bullet to the Community Group details noting that
"Existing groups that form outside the W3C that are hosted informally on
other listservs (such as Google Groups) or have their own process may also
vote to become W3C community groups and may do so with the help of
Communiy Supporters"

This is *important*, as otherwise we exclude all groups and efforts that
don't come from the new ideas forum. Given that lots of groups already
exist, we want to involve them easily and provide an easy-access point for
them.

2.1.6 - Note on Classical standards track. This makes the proposal sound
completely incompatible with traditional W3C process. Instead, it's a new
and complimentary process. While maybe over time it could replace the
classical standards track process, we don't want to paint it as
incompatible.

"Note that this process does not mean that the W3C is changing the Working
Group process except in minor ways, but simply modifying the existing IG
and XG so they can reach their full potential and allow an easy way for
communities currently outside the W3C have their work be brought to the
W3C and enter the WG process if needs be."

- "Question: Should we reuse the name "Interest" or "Incubator" instead of
"Community?" Or is the rebranding useful (and the processes will be
sufficiently different that it is worth the new name)?"

Yes.

However, we may want to change a lot of the "do not" such as "do not" have
a charter to "may have a charter", and so allow Community groups that want
charters and the ability publish reports, W3C Notes, etc. to do so if they
are approved to do so explicitly. This would allow existing IGs and XGs to
become community groups without changing anything they're doing.
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 20:32:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:44:40 UTC