Re: IG charter: initial feedback from the W3C Management to the draft charter

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:38:48 +0200, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>  
wrote:

> Hi Giuseppe,
>
> Please see inline below.
>
> On 09/24/2010 08:39 PM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
>> Kazuyuki, all
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 20:23:35 +0200, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2. Classification/Clarification of items to do
>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>
>> I agreee with this categories and I have only one request for
>> clarification:
>>
>>> Category3: Liaison work that goes on outside W3C. We should just
>>> document this for the record but should not try to re-create
>>> existing standards within W3C.
>>>
>>
>> Should the IG identify/promote liaison with other groups and even handle
>> them or just identify already active liaisons between W3C and other  
>> groups?
>> IMO the IG should at least do an analysis and promote potentially
>> interesting liaisons.
>
> Actually, my understanding is the latter, i.e., the IG should just
> identify which topic is already done by other organizations outside
> W3C.  Actual liaison to clarify/resolve the relationship with those
> organizations should be handled by the expected WG :)
>
> If it's difficult and/or time consuming for the IG to identify which
> topic/feature should be done by which organization, maybe we can
> classify that topic into the Category4 (=uncertain) and leave it to
> the WG's decision.
>

I think this is strictly related to what is expected from this IG when it  
comes to technologies that *may* be already available.
(basically the issue that Masahito Kawamori raised in another thread on  
this ML).
If the IG will not do any technical activity, then I agree with you, i.e.  
the IG can identify "potential" liaisons leaving to a future WG to handle  
it.

If this is true, though, we also need to skip the part where we say that  
no WG* will be crated for technologies already available, since the IG  
will simply not be able to take this decision.
What should be done instead is that a WG is created for each area* (even  
for areas where a non-w3c technology already exist) and then will be the  
WG do analyses/liaison etc.

*(of course when I say a "new" WG for each area is just for sake of  
simplicity. Some area could be covered by the same WG and in some cases  
and existing WG inside w3c will be able to take care of it).

I'm fine with this option as well.


> Regards,
>
> Kazuyuki
>
>


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
Linux Devices SDK
Opera Software - Sweden

Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 12:59:58 UTC