Re: First pass at use cases for "new standards" task force

I think that the ODF/OOXML saga provides some very useful guidance for
anyone thinking of hosting an avenue like this.   Its crucial that in order
for any such process to be both useful and respected, it needs to clearly
state:

-  what is and is not appropriate fodder for the process

-  what is necessary to clear the process

-  what the value of having done so is (i.e., what it does and does not
imply about a product that has successfully passed through)

- if someone can object to how the process has been conducted in any given
case, and if so, how to do so

-  what the nomenclature is for referring to the status of something that
has cleared the process (and this nomenclature should be sufficiently
different from normal W3C nomenclature as to not be easily confused)

If we set up something that meets each of these criteria, we should be able
to avoid diluting the W3C brand.

public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org wrote on 06/23/2010 10:59:44 AM:

> My first reaction to the bypass idea is similar to Dominique's
> because, as he points out, there is a risk of diluting the W3C
> Recommendation label. At the same time this would be an effective
> way of getting more work to W3C, albeit of the rubber stamping kind
> rather than development, and assuming publication is vetted by the
> members it could attract new members.
>
> Using a new name, a la Fast W3C Recommendation, could mitigate the
> risk of dilution to a certain extent but may also be less
> attractive. Maybe an appropriate disclaimer explaining the spec was
> published as "good enough" would do.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Program Director, Global Open Standards, IBM Open
> Source & Standards Policy
>
>
>
>
> From:        Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
> To:        Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
> Cc:        public-vision-newstd@w3.org
> Date:        06/23/2010 07:24 AM
> Subject:        Re: First pass at use cases for "new standards" task
force
> Sent by:        public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org
>
>
>
>
> On 23 Jun 2010, at 3:43 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>
> Hi Dom,
>
> Thanks for commenting. My notes below are not pushback on your sense
> of priorities; just trying to be more explicit about some intentions
> and other thoughts.
>
>
> > Le lundi 21 juin 2010 à 12:57 -0500, Ian Jacobs a écrit :
> >> I've written down seven use cases [1]:
> >>
> >>                  • [Core] Develop a new Web standard
> >
> > Do we really need to spend any effort on that one? It looks like we
> > already have a process for dealing with this; also, the overlap with
> > the
> > “Core” task force would be important.
>
> I don't expect to spend much time on it, no.
>
> >
> >> • [Sunset] Revise a W3C Recommendation without a Working Group
> >
> > That also seems to be more of a “Core” Task force, than “*new*
> > standards”.
>
> I think I mentioned previously that these are other use cases that
> have come up in the context of these discussions. I'm putting  it here
> for the sake of "completion" although it may not be the primary focus
> of this task force. But if we can solve it with a lightweight process,
> so much the better.
>
> >
> >>                  • [Ontology] Develop an industry-specific ontology
> >>                  • [Competition] Develop a competing specification
> >>                  • [Experiment] Experiment (new format or extension)
> >>                  • [Profile] Create a profile of one or more
specifications
> >
> > That’s the four use cases I would focus on in priority; we have clear
> > examples of where they would have been useful, and I can see benefits
> > both for W3C and the community at large to have W3C be a place where
> > that kind of work could happen.
> >
> >>                  • [ByPass] Reset expectations between W3C
> Recommendation and de
> >> facto standard
> >
> > I'm not thrilled by that one, but it might be a useful thing to
> > include
> > in our discussions; that said, I wouldn't assume that this would be
> > done
> > necessarily under the “W3C Recommendation” name (which would dilute
> > its
> > — relative — standing).
>
> I think there might be two sub-cases here, in fact:
>
>  * Get something to Rec without a WG
>  * Get something to a final state that is not a REC (but that
> represents some community review process), without a WG.
>
> I was thinking that the first sub-case looks just like "revise a w3c
> rec" except that there's no WG here.
>
> The second sub-case suggests "some other track without a WG" and a
> number of the use cases might want that approach (Experiment, Profile).
>
> Ian
>
> >
> > Dom
> >
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Use_Cases

> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/

> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
>
>

See the new Gesmer.com http://www.gesmer.com


_____________________________________________________________
Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein   
   (including any attachments) is not intended to be and        
   cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding
   tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. (The
   foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S.
   Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)<br><br>
                                                             
   Electronic mail from Gesmer Updegrove LLP, 40 Broad       
   Street, Boston, MA 02109. Voice: (617) 350-6800, Fax:     
   (617) 350-6878. This communication is intended only for   
   the use of the individual or entity named as the          
   addressee. It may contain information which is privileged
   and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not
   the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or
   agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
   copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly
   prohibited. If you have received this communication in
   error, please immediately notify Christopher O'Sullivan at
   (617) 350-6800 and notify the sender by electronic mail.
   Please expunge this communication without making any
   copies. Thank you for your cooperation.