- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:23:53 +0100 (BST)
- To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org>, public-vision-newstd@w3.org
> > On 13 Aug 2010, at 3:32 PM, Harry Halpin 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" Actually, upon further consideration, I think "New Ideas" forum may the best so far. I'd just flag the issue that the name might be a bit vague, but it's not critical. > > _ 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 Saturday, 14 August 2010 10:23:55 UTC