W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > June 2016

RE: on CGs incubating for a WG - was -> Re: Followup to "Supergroups" message to AC Forum

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:50:57 +0000
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A9D99A1F1@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel Glazman [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, 22 June, 2016 23:24
>To: public-w3process@w3.org
>Subject: Re: on CGs incubating for a WG - was -> Re: Followup to
>"Supergroups" message to AC Forum
>
>On 23/06/2016 02:25, Carr, Wayne wrote:
>>
>>   Here is a Community Group Charter template for a Community Group
>that
>>   is controlled by a parent W3C Working Group.  The Working Group writes
>>   and modifies the Community Group Charter and names the Community
>Group
>>   Chairs.  The Community Group can go beyond the current scope of the
>>   Working Group Charter, but the Working Group provides the list and
>>   description of deliverables.  The Working Group modifies the Community
>>   Group charter to modify the deliverables over time.
>
>I'm not sure to fully understand everything here...
>
>So in such a model, the CG's list of documents remains under rather tight
>control and it cannot really "incubate" on unchartered new ideas without a
>Charter amendment coming from above? "In scope" seems to me totally
>useless then.

This is a Community Group Charter amendment that is done by the Working Group deciding to do it and announcing it to the Community Group.  The new Charter takes effect after 45 days, to let CG members decide if they want to stay in the CG.  It does not mean a Working Group re-chartering, which I think what you may be thinking above.

>
>One of the reasons incubation CGs were originally proposed was to simplify
>the incubation process and respond to people saying our way of making new
>stuff emerge is too complicated, too long, too process-based. I remind all
>readers we have in front of us a quasi- informal organization able to
>incubate and push forward new ideas overnight.

Yes.  This doesn't change that.  It is an option for where a Working Group wants to control a particular Community Group associated with the Working Group.  Community Groups can use the usual Charter Template where they choose what they want to do, can write their own charter from scratch, or can operate without any Charter and the Chair (if they want) completely owns the group and makes all decisions.  There's still the wide range of options.  This is just for if a WG wants to control an associated CG.

Earlier in this discussion there was the objection to incubating in a CG and a proposal to doing incubation work (with no patent licensing commitments) in a WG because of concern a Community Group could run off on its own.  This proposal is to address that.

>
>Furthermore, Incubation CGs were meant to let the WGs above "finalize"
>REC track work moving the whole imagination effort down the road to CGs. I
>am under the very strong impression that Incubation CGs should have a
>scope but *not* a list of specs. Deliverables are for WGs. An Incubation CG
>should be able to start work on *anything* in scope w/o any kind of
>authorization or control from above. Then the above WG accepts or not to
>include that work in its own list of Deliverables. Please note the question of
>what happens and what's the negative impact on W3C's image if the
>decision is a "no" remains unresolved at this point... And I see it as a *very*
>important concern.

No, that is not how many CGs operate.  They often have particular deliverables and recharter to add others.  See Second Screen CG, Auto CG, Bluetooth CG, WebVR CG  ...  The Web Platform Incubator CG is a CG where they can add any spec on anything.  As I wrote above, CGs in general can be anything the Chair decides they are (if they have no charter at all or the charter says so)

>Potentially even a critical concern.
>
>Do we really think CG members willing to start work on ideas in scope will
>wait for a Charter amendment if it's not in the current list of CG or WG
>deliverables? Is that what we want and what we need?

This is for the situation where the WG wants to do it and it isn't ready for FPWD and those people will do it in the CG.  If no one wants to work on something, then of course no one will.  

>
>In the model described above, and if I understood it correctly, I think we're
>losing the whole CG benefit and I don't see the work division between WG
>and CG useful in any way. I even see it quite harmful.

There are patent commitments for contributions in a CG and it can work on things not in the WG Charter.  This handles exploratory incubating work that some AC members think does not belong in a WG.

>
>> (aside: I think the CSS WG has been treated differently than other
>> groups like Web Platforms and Device and Sensor in allowing CSS to be
>> looser in defining deliverables. That may be because there is less
>> concern about patents in the areas dealt with in the CSS WG.  It isn't
>> a practical model for much of what W3C does.)
>
>Not only that. The Membership of the CSS WG has a dual position here:
>on one hand, some of its AC-Reps care about Charter, ETAs, etc. On another,
>Members push new ideas and new drafts *all the time* and it's a browser
>war. It's out of question to wait. I repeat: out of question.
>So the same AC-Reps say nothing when an unchartered FPWD is published.
>I have litterally dozens of live examples of that behaviour. And still, the CSS
>WG is an example of a WG in good shape and resisting pretty well to the
>"living standards" frenzy.

I think that may be: 1) because there is less worry about patents in the types of things CSSS WG does; or 2) the AC doesn't realize it; or 3) they think the CSS WG charter is so vague that all of this is in scope.

>
>That's the very reason why I am saying our process is not in line with our
>daily practice any more and we should change it.


There was a proposal earlier on the thread to change the patent policy to have experimental specs where the patent policy is contribution based, just like a CG.  Suggestions to change the patent policy haven't gone very far.  CGs can be used to do exactly the same thing.  That was the point.

>
></Daniel>
>
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2016 14:51:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 23 June 2016 14:51:32 UTC