Re: Updated task force proposal; comments welcome

On 13 Aug 2010, at 3:38 PM, Michael Champion wrote:

>> 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@.
>
> How about "New Proposals Forum"  ?  Or "Brainstorming Forum"?

Or "New Idea Forum"?

>  Or something that puts some boundaries on the appropriate  
> discussion, but doesn't restrict it to "standards".  We do NOT want  
> to imply that what comes out of the forum is a "standard",  nor do  
> we want to exclude discussion of test cases, best practices, and  
> other useful work that isn't necessarily a "standard."

Agreed.

  _ Ian

>
> Michael Champion
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org [mailto:public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Harry Halpin
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 1:32 PM
> To: ij@w3.org
> Cc: public-vision-newstd@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Updated task force proposal; comments welcome
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447

Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 21:00:10 UTC