W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2014

Feedback on Process-20140801 section 6

From: <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:29:01 -0400
Message-ID: <20140813012901.25206875.84566.1987@gmail.com>
To: public-w3process@w3.org
I'm sorry that I didn't send this feedback on [1] earlier, I've been busy. 


{Section 6 Working Groups, Interest Groups, and Coordination Groups}

> Working Groups.
> Interest Groups.
> Coordination Groups.

Normally <.> and <,> aren't included in links, they are here. Please move them outside.


> A Coordination Group manages dependencies and facilitates communication with other groups, within or outside of W3C.

about 1/4 of the time <W3C> appears in this document, it appears as <the W3C>.


> Neither Interest Groups nor Coordination Groups publish Recommendation Track technical reports;

rfc MUST NOT ?


> Existing charters that are not yet public MUST be made public when next revised or extended (with attention to changing confidentiality level).

Ian says no charters are currently private, I think this line can be removed.

> The Director appoints (and re-appoints) Chairs for all groups.

+must/shall


> Each group MUST have a Team Contact, who acts as the interface between the Chair, group participants, and the rest of the Team.

s/acts/should act/


> It is the responsibility of the Chair and Team Contact to ensure that new participants are subscribed to all relevant mailing lists. 

-> The Chair and Team Contact *should* ensure that new participants are subscribed to all relevant mailing lists. 

> Task forces do not publish technical reports; the Working Group MAY choose to publish their results as part of a technical report.

their is ambiguous. s/their/the task force's/


> To allow rapid progress, Working Groups are intended to be small (typically fewer than 15 people) and composed of experts in the area defined by the charter.

Um. 15?

Without naming names, a quick (biased) sampling shows membership in some working groups as:
>400; >200; >100; >100; ~100; ~45; >40; ~40; ~25

> In principle, Interest Groups have no limit on the number of participants.
> When a Working Group grows too large to be effective,
> W3C MAY split it into an Interest Group (a discussion forum) and a much smaller Working Group (a core group of highly dedicated participants).

HTML hasn't split :)

While I understand the idea, and I think I might support the idea of the W3 (but is this Team? Director?) creating an IG.
I think there's a problem in that W3 is "open" (this isn't intended to be a flame entrypoint, please don't respond to it that way),
and thus any Member may join most WGs (Good Standing requirements asside),
so I don't think W3 can really move people out of a WG, and even if this line item enabled W3 to do so, they could all (with AC rep authorization) rejoin the WG.

Also, unless this line item offers a faster-path to creating an IG than the standard IG proposal to AC path, then I'm not sure how useful it is as a line item.

Perhaps "Team should consider offering an IG to Members of a WG if the WG seems to have lots of Members who aren't actively contributing" or something...

> See also the licensing obligations on Working Group participants in section 3 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33], and the patent claim exclusion process of section 4.

Also note that this line item is one which argues against moving companies out of a WG.

> A Member participates in a Working Group from the moment the first Member representative joins the group until either of the following occurs:
> the group closes, or
> the Member resigns from the Working Group; this is done through the Member's Advisory Committee representative.

In a previous message, I noted that an individual can die, and that this should be considered.
Here, I'll add two items:
1. a Member ceases to participate in all groups if it ceases to exist, or if it ceases to be a Member of W3
2. does a Member cease to be a Member of a WG if its last WG Member dies? or is it considered to be a Member in search of living representation? And is there a time limit on its limbo status?
(Occasionally a team ends up flying on an airplane which doesn't have a successful outcome [or goes into a building which meets an airplane...], which means that the people who would normally be responsible for resolving such things may not be in a position to deal with them promptly as they have bigger problems to address)


> To designate an individual as a Member representative in an Interest Group, the Advisory Committee representative MUST follow the instructions in the Call for Participation and charter.

s/charter/the group's charter/

> accept the participation terms set forth in the charter

s/charter/group's charter/

> (including the participation requirements of section 3 (especially 3.4) and section 6 (especially 6.10) of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33]).
> Indicate a specific charter date or version,

or URL (which includes the date+version)?


> An individual is a Team representative in a Working Group when so designated by W3C management.

This is the first instance of <W3C management>, and it isn't written as <W3C Management> nor defined somewhere obvious to this point.


> An Team representative participates in a Working Group from the moment the individual joins the group until any of the following occurs:

s/An/A/

> the group closes, or
> W3C management changes Team representation by sending email to the Chair, cc'ing the group mailing list.

A group may have both a public and a private list, s/the/a/ or ??
And again, what happens if the Team representative dies? Is the representative defaulted to <Director> with a MUST designate replacement?


> Participation by an individual in a Working Group on an ongoing basis implies a serious commitment to the charter, including all of the following:

s/the/its/


> The Chair declares a participant in Bad Standing by informing the participant's Advisory Committee representative and the participant of the decision.

If participant is the AC, does the Chair inform the AC twice?


> When a Member representative permanently replaces another (i.e., is not simply a temporary substitute), the new participant inherits the standing of the departing participant.

If Member has two Participants in Group (one with Good standing and one bad), and adds a third, and then removes the one with bad, what standing does the new participant have? (Good, Bad, new)?


> The suggestions for building support around an Activity Proposal apply to charters as well.

s/to/to group/ ?


> W3C MAY begin work on a Working Group or Interest Group charter at any time.
> A Working Group or Interest Group MUST be part of an approved Activity.

This seems to conflict with 5.6 Activity Proposals:
>> What groups will be created as part of this Activity and how those groups will be coordinated. For each group, the proposal MUST include a provisional charter. 

> After Advisory Committee review of a Working Group or Interest Group charter

+ (new or revised)

to clarify/avoid the logical question which stems from:
> After a Call for Participation, any Member representatives and Invited Experts MUST be designated (or re-designated).

... as "Under what circumstances would Invited Experts be re-designated?"

Does this mean that IEs only need to be re-designated in some instances when a group is re-chartered, but not in all instances (and not for charter-extensions)?


> After a charter extension, Advisory Committee representatives and the Chair are NOT REQUIRED to re-designate Member representatives and Invited Experts.

+respectively


> A Working Group or Interest Group charter MUST include all of the following information.

s/./:/


> It is important that a Working Group keep the Membership and public informed of its activity and progress.

s/public/the public/


> Each Working Group MUST publish a new draft of at least one of its active technical reports on the W3C technical reports index [PUB11] at least once every three months.

If it doesn't have any active TRs, it doesn't need to publish any?


> A charter MAY include additional voting procedures, but those procedures MUST NOT conflict with the voting requirements of the Process Document.

s/A charter/The charter/

> A charter MAY include provisions other than those required by this document. The charter SHOULD highlight whether additional provisions impose constraints beyond those of the W3C Process Document.

s/A charter/The charter/


[1] http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2014 01:29:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:11 UTC