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

Re: Updated task force proposal; comments welcome

From: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:43:09 +0000
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, "public-vision-newstd@w3.org" <public-vision-newstd@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E3F85359-1EFE-4841-B2A7-7BCC93C8BAAC@microsoft.com>
Web Innovation Forum works for me

Michael Champion




On Aug 13, 2010, at 4:07 PM, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Harry,
> 
> Thanks for comments, which I've endeavored to integrate. See one suggestion inline.
> 
>> 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"
> 
> How about:
> 
> "Web Innovation Forum"
> 
> _ Ian
> 
>> 
>> 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 23:43:52 UTC

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