Re: IG charter: modification suggestion

On 10/01/2010 01:16 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 02:55:23 +0200, FUNAHASHI Yosuke
> <yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kaz,
>>
>> Thank you for your kind instruction and help.:)
>>
>> I think we had better prepare for many scenarios, so we should
>> document the process on early stage whether we can imagine a concrete
>> need for them or not.
>
> I looked around for other groups that have created task forces, and not
> found any documentation of how they did it even for Task Forces that
> functions across working groups. From memory this is usually done by
> making the task force take place within a single group, so they can just
> create it. But I think we can do it without having to put anything in
> the charter, so long as what the Task Force is doing doesn't exceed our
> normal scope.

Right.

Kazuyuki


>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
>> Do you have any example or template for the document?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yosuke
>>
>>
>> On 2010/09/30, at 4:20, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Yosuke,
>>>
>>> Theoretically, the chair (or co-Chairs) can form subgroups
>>> (officially called "task forces" in the W3C Process document [1])
>>> later, but a group should document the process it uses to create
>>> task forces. That's why I'm asking you all for your opinion about
>>> having task forces :)
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#ReqsAllGroups
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Kazuyuki
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/30/2010 04:02 AM, FUNAHASHI Yosuke wrote:
>>>> Hi Kaz,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for installing Charles's updated draft.
>>>> I think it is quite good. Thank you, Charles.
>>>>
>>>>> Point1: "Usual Meeting Schedule" and (maybe related to) "4.
>>>>> Participation"
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd agree Charles' following proposal:
>>>>> - Teleconferences: Teleconferences may be held as required
>>>>> - Face-to-face: As required up to 3 per year
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, I was wondering if it would make sense the IG has several
>>>>> subgroups/task forces for each country/area of broadcasting
>>>>> system/standard, e.g., Japan, Europe, North/South America, because I
>>>>> think broadcasting technology basically has several existing (and
>>>>> competing) standards, and also each country/area has many broadcasters
>>>>> who have their own opinions. For example, there are seven (and more)
>>>>> broadcasters from Japan as we saw in the Web on TV Workshop in Tokyo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably it should be useful for the IG's work if each subgroup could
>>>>> have detailed discussion (f2f, telephone or email) regularly using
>>>>> their mother tongue, and bring their conclusion to the main group as
>>>>> official proposal from that country/area.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> That is a good point. I think subgroups will bring many possibilities.
>>>> As you slightly mentioned, their interest or stake forms complicated
>>>> network sometimes beyond country/area, industries and technologies.
>>>> So I
>>>> expect there will be various kind of subgroups.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any idea about the process or procedure for the approval of
>>>> subgroups?
>>>> Or you mean only predefined subgroups? (for example by country/area)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Yosuke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2010/09/30, at 2:32, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Yosuke, Charles and all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks a lot for your thoughtful comments, Yosuke!
>>>>> And thank you very much for your updating the draft charter, Charles!
>>>>>
>>>>> I think there are the following two points here:
>>>>> - Point1. Usual Meeting Schedule
>>>>> - Point2. Deliverables
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd add my brief comments to each point below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please see also Charles' updated Charter at:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/09/webTVIGcharter.html
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, Charles was worried about newly introduced typos in the updated
>>>>> draft, but I just found the following four typos when I checked the
>>>>> document using the W3C Spell Checker :)
>>>>>
>>>>> - s/stakeholer/stakeholder/
>>>>> - s/categorisation/categorization/
>>>>> - s/exhuastive/exhaustive/
>>>>> - s/public-web-tv@w3.org/public-web-and-tv@w3.org/g
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Point1: "Usual Meeting Schedule" and (maybe related to) "4.
>>>>> Participation"
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd agree Charles' following proposal:
>>>>> - Teleconferences: Teleconferences may be held as required
>>>>> - Face-to-face: As required up to 3 per year
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, I was wondering if it would make sense the IG has several
>>>>> subgroups/task forces for each country/area of broadcasting
>>>>> system/standard, e.g., Japan, Europe, North/South America, because I
>>>>> think broadcasting technology basically has several existing (and
>>>>> competing) standards, and also each country/area has many broadcasters
>>>>> who have their own opinions. For example, there are seven (and more)
>>>>> broadcasters from Japan as we saw in the Web on TV Workshop in Tokyo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably it should be useful for the IG's work if each subgroup could
>>>>> have detailed discussion (f2f, telephone or email) regularly using
>>>>> their mother tongue, and bring their conclusion to the main group as
>>>>> official proposal from that country/area.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Point2: "2. Deliverables"
>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> I like Charles' wording and would agree to his proposal here again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Kazuyuki
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/30/2010 01:43 AM, FUNAHASHI Yosuke wrote:
>>>>>> Oops. Some typo fixing;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> s/without insufficient/without sufficient/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Yosuke
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2010/09/30, at 1:08, FUNAHASHI Yosuke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Charles,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Point1: Usual Meeting Schedule
>>>>> -------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/28/2010 10:30 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thank you, in general I think the modifications are a good idea
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your kind understanding regarding care for TV related
>>>>>>> industries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are a couple of points I think should be further discussed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Teleconferences:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The big problem with these is that there is no time of day which
>>>>>>>> doesn't mean someone is asked to be awake when their body is
>>>>>>>> asleep.
>>>>>>>> While occasionally they can be useful, making them regular and
>>>>>>>> assuming that participation depends on attending teleconferences,
>>>>>>>> rather than active participation in mailing list discussions, can
>>>>>>>> lead to low participation and problems of remaining relevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If people are expected to attend the teleconference to be
>>>>>>>> counted as
>>>>>>>> a participant, we waste a lot of time deciding who is going to be
>>>>>>>> asleep when the teleconference takes place. In general, whoever
>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>> becomes disadvantaged by being asleep, sometimes to the point where
>>>>>>>> they are unable to justify the expense of attending, so they stop.
>>>>>>>> Bit by bit others decide that the teleconference is not so useful
>>>>>>>> without active participation from everyone, so they stop too.
>>>>>>>> This is
>>>>>>>> a process I have observed repeatedly in many standards groups,
>>>>>>>> over a
>>>>>>>> couple of decades.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In addition, it is not sensible to assume that decisions can be
>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>> by the people at teleconferences. Many people are busy from time to
>>>>>>>> time (e.g. meeting customers, urgent technical work, business
>>>>>>>> requirements, etc) and cannot attend all teleconferences. It
>>>>>>>> makes no
>>>>>>>> sense to assume that these people should be shut out of expressing
>>>>>>>> their opinion on a proposal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally, holding a regular teleconference without a clear agenda
>>>>>>>> being prepared and distributed well in advance, and without
>>>>>>>> sticking
>>>>>>>> carefully to the agenda (to enable people to miss a
>>>>>>>> teleconference if
>>>>>>>> they really don't care about a particular agenda), is simply
>>>>>>>> pointless. But preparing and chairing such meetings is a large
>>>>>>>> amount
>>>>>>>> of work. Given the uncertainty about the outcome, I don't think we
>>>>>>>> should bind ourselves to this work pattern over two or three years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All that said, it may be that the way to achieve particular
>>>>>>>> goals is
>>>>>>>> to hold a series of teleconferences, so we should have them
>>>>>>>> listed on
>>>>>>>> an as-needed basis. In particular, dealing with a particular set of
>>>>>>>> deliverables might be best done through a couple of
>>>>>>>> teleconferences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now I understand your image regarding work style of the IG. I think
>>>>>>> your suggestion is based on your image and experience of the
>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>> commitment of participants in IGs, and I suppose your suggestion
>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>> practical approach for planning how to run the IG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the same time, I am slightly anxious for us only to consider work
>>>>>>> style at the very first. We had better think three topics at once;
>>>>>>> work style, deliverables (the other side of scope) and timeline.
>>>>>>> These
>>>>>>> are firmly related each other. I do not mean you are the person who
>>>>>>> think only work style first. Actually, you mentioned deliverables
>>>>>>> simultaneously as below. I would like only to clarify the key
>>>>>>> point of
>>>>>>> discussion regarding this topic for all the members in this ML.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On that premise, I would like to express my opinion. I think
>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>> at least one alternative approach for how to run the IG. Short term,
>>>>>>> high commitment and strong performance, so to speak. Why? Because
>>>>>>> I am
>>>>>>> somewhat worried that low commitment of many people for long term
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> not bring good deliverables (by itself). I think we need some
>>>>>>> kind of
>>>>>>> layered structure in the organization of the IG. One layer is
>>>>>>> public;
>>>>>>> low commitment, many people and somewhat long term. The other
>>>>>>> layer is
>>>>>>> restricted, high commitment, not so many people and several short
>>>>>>> terms. This is the reason why I suggested ML should be public but IG
>>>>>>> itself should be restricted in my modified charter. Both layers have
>>>>>>> merits and demerits. We can get two merits if we add those two
>>>>>>> layers
>>>>>>> carefully. (We can also get two demerits if...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just in case: I do not mean this work style alone is superior to
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> suggestion alone. Which approach is appropriate for the IG
>>>>>>> depends on
>>>>>>> the decision about deliverables and timeline. The balance among
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>> three factors is important. If the balance is established, it
>>>>>>> does not
>>>>>>> matter for me which approach is adopted; your approach, my
>>>>>>> approach or
>>>>>>> whatever approach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just in case again: You insisted repeatedly we should start soon.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>> I think finishing early -- i.e. making good deliverables early -- is
>>>>>>> more important. I agree with you that starting soon is important,
>>>>>>> because the end never comes if we do not start. But I would like to
>>>>>>> say that going wrong direction or starting without insufficient
>>>>>>> equipments for success is much worse than doing nothing. You
>>>>>>> know, in
>>>>>>> such a situation, our effort will come to nothing. This is the very
>>>>>>> reason why I think we need a little more time before the IG
>>>>>>> started. I
>>>>>>> would like to suggest topic list that we should discuss before
>>>>>>> the IG
>>>>>>> started in a few days.
>>>>>
>>>>> Point2: Deliverables
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The modifications suggest that only a particular set of items from
>>>>>>>> the Workshop are considered as priorities. I think there are two
>>>>>>>> problems with this approach:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first is the manner of selection. While one workshop
>>>>>>>> presented a
>>>>>>>> certain set of issues, and then slected the ones that the
>>>>>>>> participants thought were important, both the representation in the
>>>>>>>> workshop and the selection process were biased. The
>>>>>>>> understanding we
>>>>>>>> had was that there would be at least a second workshop in
>>>>>>>> Europe, and
>>>>>>>> probably one in the Americas, and we expect different workshops to
>>>>>>>> identify different priorities (and even different work items). This
>>>>>>>> is not a negative reflection on the workshop, but a consequence of
>>>>>>>> the process that the workshop was part of.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Second, while the TV industry doesn't always move fast, it can
>>>>>>>> do so,
>>>>>>>> and the Web industry does so. We should be prepared to consider
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> things which seem important now might not be so important in late
>>>>>>>> 2011, and that things which don't seem important now might become
>>>>>>>> important by then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For both these reasons, while I agree that we should begin the work
>>>>>>>> with the concrete tasks as described in your modifications, I think
>>>>>>>> it is important to leave the Interest Group with the ability to
>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>> on new tasks or re-prioritise existing tasks - most especially in
>>>>>>>> light of the workshop planned for Q1 2011 in Europe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Honestly speaking, I just copy-and-pasted the W3M suggestion
>>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>> deliverables in my modified charter. I have some opinion about this
>>>>>>> topic as well. Before discussing this topic, I would like to ask you
>>>>>>> to what extent we should consider the importance of W3M
>>>>>>> suggestions on
>>>>>>> the IG. I felt it must have strong influence, therefore I just
>>>>>>> copy-and-pasted. Though I am a member of W3C now, I am new to
>>>>>>> W3C. And
>>>>>>> I guess the considerable number of participants in this public ML
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> new to W3C too. I appreciate you if you clarify this point to
>>>>>>> promote
>>>>>>> discussion about this topic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Yosuke
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --Kazuyuki Ashimura / W3C Multimodal & Voice Activity Lead
>>> mailto: ashimura@w3.org
>>> voice: +81.466.49.1170 / fax: +81.466.49.1171
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Kazuyuki Ashimura / W3C Multimodal & Voice Activity Lead
mailto: ashimura@w3.org
voice: +81.466.49.1170 / fax: +81.466.49.1171

Received on Friday, 1 October 2010 11:14:17 UTC