- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 01:59:14 +0100 (BST)
- To: "Arnaud Le Hors" <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-vision-newstd@w3.org
> Hmm... So what you're saying is that I didn't miss anything and, while the > proposal is approved, it isn't given any of the necessary resources to > implement it. I can appreciate the problem of funding but that's not much > of a victory then. > > Looking back at our proposal document I think we may have aimed a bit high > though and it would probably be useful to draft the minimum infrastructure > we would need to be able to launch this. (I'm not volunteering though, > sorry. ;-) I imagine a more basic portal would be possible without too work, depending on if we can get Systems Team attention to do a off-the-shelf open source forum software install. Or we could also just do another list-serv and have someone monitor it. Any idea for open-source forum software? > -- > Arnaud Le Hors - Program Director, Global Open Standards, IBM Open Source > & Standards Policy > > > > > From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> > To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: public-vision-newstd@w3.org > Date: 10/14/2010 04:14 PM > Subject: Re: Update on new standards proposal > Sent by: public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org > > > > > On 14 Oct 2010, at 5:43 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: > >> Hello Ian, >> >> I'm glad the general idea was approved but I'm not sure I understand >> what is going to be offered to facilitate the creation and work of >> Community Group if no infrastructure is provided. I must be missing >> something because practically speaking how would these groups then >> come to life and function? > > Good question. > > I have made it clear to my colleagues that without a scalable system, > this will be very hard to implement. One solution is for the systems > team to drop other work in favor of this project. That's a possibility > but requires further negotiation with the Head of Systems (which I've > started). > > Another option (probably in combination with the first) is to seek > external funding, like a sponsorship program. > > I welcome additional suggestions, > > _ Ian > > >> >> Thanks. >> -- >> Arnaud Le Hors - Program Director, Global Open Standards, IBM Open >> Source & Standards Policy >> >> >> >> >> From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> >> To: public-vision-newstd@w3.org >> Date: 10/14/2010 03:28 PM >> Subject: Update on new standards proposal >> Sent by: public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org >> >> >> >> Hello all, >> >> I come bearing pretty good news! >> >> Here's an update on the new standards task force proposal [1] >> following W3C's annual management meeting. The purpose of that meeting >> was to prioritize and select from among the many proposals produced by >> all five of the task forces created by the CEO (including this one). >> Here are the results. I welcome your comments, questions, etc. >> >> _ Ian >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community >> >> ============= >> On the proposal >> >> This proposal is *approved* ... in part. Congratulations to the task >> force for a job well done. This is likely to have a big positive >> effect on W3C. >> >> Pending discussion with the Advisory Committee the first week of >> November, W3C will fund part of it and W3C will start to implement it. >> That's going to mean: >> >> - Hammering out the details of the proposal, probably with some >> process document edits >> - Same with the IPR policy: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/newstdipr.html >> >> The parts that will *not* be funded with funds available today are: >> >> - Infrastructure >> http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community#infrastructure >> >> - Developer portal >> http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community#portal >> >> People liked these proposals a lot, but they liked others (of the 100 >> or so we started with) even more. >> >> I am likely to begin seeking additional funding for at least one of >> these, because I think they are important to the success of the >> program overall. Let me know if you'd like to talk more about that. >> >> ============== >> On revenue ideas >> >> I have also been discussing the relationship between this proposal and >> a related, revenue-bearing proposal for something we are calling >> "business groups." The idea is this: >> >> - If you want to create a group rapidly and need very little W3C >> staff involvement, a community group is the way to go. >> - If you want extra benefits but no ongoing staff contact, then >> Members can create a business group and non-Members can participate >> for a fee that is a fraction of the regular W3C Membership dues. The >> extra benefits (in the draft proposal) include some periodic >> consulting from the W3C staff, and the opportunity to work in a forum >> that is publicly readable but not writable. >> - If you want significant staff resource investment, then W3C >> expects large organizations to support W3C through Membership dues, >> whether their work will be on the standards track (Working Group) or >> not (Interest Group). >> >> Thus, there will be some new options for participation (for new >> audiences) with different price tags and sets of benefits. We are >> still working those out but I wanted to let you know where we stand. >> -- >> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ >> Tel: +1 718 260 9447 >> >> >> > > -- > Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ > Tel: +1 718 260 9447 > > > >
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 00:59:18 UTC