W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2004

Re: Atom WG W3C Charter Mockup

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 20:51:49 +0200
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <40ba7f80.532395323@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Karl Dubost wrote:
>We have finished the draft of what *could be* an Atom WG Charter at 
>W3C. It's just a mockup and nothing official, but it helps you to 
>foresee what it will look like. It doesn't mean it has to be exactly 
>like that too.

>	http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/W3cCharter

[...]
  Legal Data

  W3C promotes an open working environment. Whenever possible, technical
  decisions should be made unencumbered by intellectual property right
  (IPR) claims. W3C's policy for intellectual property is set out in
  section 2.2 of the W3C Process document and in the W3C Current Patent
  Practice document. 
[...]

Since the Process document got revised in June 2003 (and February 2004)
section 2.2 no longer deals with intellectual property and my
understanding is that all new W3C Working Groups will operate under the
February 2004 revision of the W3C Patent Policy not under the CPP.

[...]
  Tracking and Maintenance Items

  If the WG thinks that it will be beneficial for the Atom community as
  large. 

    * Collect errata and periodically publish new editions of Atom
      Syntax/API incorporating errata 

    * Gather requirements for any subsequent version of Atom Syntax/API 

    * Monitoring of implementations for conformance to Atom Syntax/API,
      interoperability and quality. Publication of Implementation
      Reports. 

    * Atom Primer
[...]

Tracking errata and publishing revised specifications is not optional
per W3C Process, it is a requirement for all Working Groups. This also
contradicts the proposed deliverables where "Post-Recommendation work
items: errata, implementation tracking, collecting requirements for
future versions." is explicitly listed. An "Atom Primer" also sounds
more like a deliverable than a "Tracking and Maintenance" item.

The Working Group should probably have a liaison with both the W3C XML
Key Management Activity and the W3C Privacy Activity as the "editing
protocol" listed in "Architectural Constraints" deals with
authentication (and authorization?) and personal data.

[...]
  Deliverables

  The Working Group will follow the W3C Recommendation Track to produce:

    * The Atom Syndication Format 1.0 Recommendation 
    * Atom Format Test Suite 
    * The Atom API 1.0 Recommendation 
    * Atom API Test Suite 
    * Implementation Report 
    * Atom Disposition of Comments document. 
    * Post-Recommendation work items: errata, implementation tracking,
      collecting requirements for future versions. 
[...]

Does that mean that all these documents are to be delivered as W3C
Recommendations? That would seem unwise. If that is not the intention,
it should be clearly pointed out where each deliverable would go.

[...]
  Public Participation

  Public participation is the norm, and the group will process and
  respond comments from all participants. The standard will be
  consensus, as defined in the W3C Process Document. 
[...]

All W3C WGs are required to formally address all comments on
Recommendation Track documents; it is also unclear what is considered
a participant, what this means for non-Rec-Track deliverables (if any).

I am puzzled by the last sentence. What does "standard" mean in this
context? Is that the "Atom Standard"? In that case, anyone can cause
the Working Group to fail by objecting to a decision. Maybe what this
is trying to say is that the WG operates by consensus? The statement
would then be misplaced in this section.

The charter lacks information on meeting mechanisms, f2f meetings,
distributed meetings, etc.

regards.
Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 14:52:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:44 GMT