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: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:23:53 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <91829362d92f916e0f81d1b7df51005d.squirrel@webmail-mit.w3.org>
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

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