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

My answers on remaining questions...

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:32:55 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <c16f821680d85ebb5c49a59a4a49383a.squirrel@webmail-mit.w3.org>
To: public-vision-newstd@w3.org
* Question: How are Community Supporters chosen?

I'd say open call for volunteers before launching from existing W3C member
groups. Maybe do this once, and then from that select an initial volunteer

* Question: In Apache projects, there are various levels of responsibility
that you can have based on reputation. In an Apache progress, for
instance, you get committer privileges. Are there analogous privileges for
a Community Group (e.g., write access to the spec, or distinct mailing
lists where one is world readable but only writable by select people)?

I'd let the community manage this, but to be honest, given that the W3C
does not yet have social web infrastructure set-up for reputation
management etc. (perhaps we should inspect Apache's closer), I think we
should just the community handle that, but have the Community Supporter
explain the kinds of roles to them, But we should keep brainstorming

* Question: We need experienced editors. How do we bring new editors to
the community?

Train via the Community Supporter, and encourage existing people who enjoy
editing to train others.

* Ideas include: Membership or invited expert (current); Member or invited
expert but if came from a Community Group, non-Member employees have right
to participate [challenge: IPR commitments from their employers].

I'd prefer that this option be settled by the charter, but it would
require advice from PSIG etc. on members. The trick will be members who
participated as individuals in CGs but then upon transition to WG can't
get their employer to do IPR.

* IP in general: Ideas include: none, OWFa, RF for Rec track, RF
commitment that times out...

Again, go for PSIG, but I think the entire point of starting the
Innovation Forum and Community Working Group process is to get the IP up
front as soon as possible.

* 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)?

+1 Community.

* Question: should there be a minimal level of support?

I'd say 3 members for an XG = 6 people for a CG. Otherwise it's too small
and bound to die.

  *     Question: Should we engage designers to develop a new visual brand
for these new offerings?

Yes. First ask for volunteer designs...then vote!

* Question: For Web Innovation Forum and Community Groups, should
participants have disclosure obligations over Rec track documents
according to the W3C Patent Policy. This may affect whether some
organizations allow their employees to participate in these lightweight
groups, even if disclosure is limited to personal knowledge.

Again, I would say "no" unless result of Community Group goes to "Rec" track.

Question: Will Members ask that employee accounts be approved by Members?

We should probably have people in CGs be able to participate as
individuals (i.e. have W3C "individual" accounts), not company reps, but
then we need to make sure IP from company doesn't stop possible Rec-track.
Again, the goal should be to try to get as much IP on the table as soon as
possible. So, *if possible* people that work for members should *try* to
get member permission and IP disclosures. Also, why not move to some sort
of OpenID-ish system for CGs?

Question: Should we have some mechanism for granting write access to
documents? This might be more stringent than the ability to post to a

I.e. the person should need an "individual" account or "member" account,
if only to prevent spam :)

Member account
Received on Monday, 23 August 2010 18:32:56 UTC

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