W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Group Participation and Good Standing - feedback wanted

From: Mountie Lee <mountie.lee@mw2.or.kr>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 21:34:00 +0900
Message-ID: <CAE-+aYLoiT9LZ+E6hG3Nob_3qU_Pfr1Jr-VA3h6vXiH+b4STkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>

here in Korea, many people has BIG interest for webcrypto WG.
but I also feel the activities are lowered including me.

from my personal situations, the reasons what I can say are
- as volunteer, I don't have enough time to track all issues because of my
own business.
- as mid-grade engineer, some issues of low level API are difficult to jump
in discussion thread because I don't have much good idea to
enhance consensus.
- concall time is one of my problem to join in.
- waiting the high-level api seasons. (more focus to high level api)
- some internal reasons (forming KR WG, discuss what we can do in Korea....)


On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:

>  I understand lots of folks in the WG are busy and there is naturally a
> bit of a relaxation period after a FPWD to see reviews come in, however,
> I'd like to see the WG kick into gear and start going through the open
> issues. I did notice that there was not as much participation recently -
> I'd like to know why as to encourage more activity.
> 1) Are people having difficulty following the email threads?
> 2) Do people only care about certain issues and are happy to ignore the
> rest?
> 3) Are people happy or not happy about the overall direction the API is
> taking?
> I am wondering, given the large amount of members, we could start applying
> "Good standing rules" [1], although exception could be made for those who
> are based in timezones such as Korea and Japan where it is unreasonable for
> a person to wake up to attend the telecons. Note I am open to doing
> separate calls with the W3C for this participants, so I'd like to know if
> those folks (Mountie, Channy, etc.) would like this or if they are happy
> with mailing list participation.
> Good Standing Rules are summarized from [1] below - however, I do find
> them somewhat harsh so I'd be happy to relax them. However, not attending
> *any* telecons and not participating over the mailing list at all is a bit
> odd, especially when there is so much work to be done!
>    cheers,
>       harry
> -----
> Participation by an individual in a Working Group on an ongoing basis
> implies a serious commitment to the charter, including all of the following:
>    - attending most meetings of the Working Group.
>    - providing deliverables or drafts of deliverables in a timely fashion.
>    - being familiar with the relevant documents of the Working Group,
>    including minutes of past meetings.
>    - following discussions on relevant mailing list(s).
> ...
> A participant MAY be declared in Bad Standing in any of the following
> circumstances:
>    - the individual has missed more than one of the last three
>    distributed meeting
>     - the individual has missed more than one of the last three
>    face-to-face meetings.
>     - the individual has not provided deliverables in a timely fashion
>    twice in sequence.
>    - the individual has not followed the conflict of interest by
>    disclosing information to the rest of the group.
> Although all participants representing an organization SHOULD attend all
> meetings, attendance by one representative of an organization satisfies the
> meeting attendance requirement for all representatives of the organization.
> The above criteria MAY be relaxed if the Chair and Team Contact agree
> that doing so will not set back the Working Group. For example, the
> attendance requirement can be relaxed for reasons of expense (e.g., cost of
> travel) or scheduling (for example, an exceptional teleconference is
> scheduled at 3:00 a.m. local time for the participant). It is the
> responsibility of the Chair and Team Contact to apply criteria for Good
> Standing consistently.
> When a participant risks losing Good Standing, the Chair and Team Contact
> are expected to discuss the matter with the participant and the
> participant's Advisory Committee representative (or W3C management for the
> Team) before declaring the participant in Bad Standing.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#good-standing

PayGate Inc.
for Korea, Japan, China, and the World
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 12:34:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 October 2012 12:34:55 GMT