W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: W3C I18N Group recharters: Input invited

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:27:48 +0100
To: <aphillips@webmethods.com>, "'Bjoern Hoehrmann'" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: <www-international@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20040719172746.675684EFDB@homer.w3.org>

Hi Bjoern, 

Thanks for your comments on the GEO WG charter.  

This is old text that hasn't been properly addressed in this early draft of the charter. I will fix this so that it says that work will be publicly accessible, as is currently the case.

Note that we are particularly interested in any comments related to the intended deliverables of the group, as outlined in the note asking for feedback.

Cheers,
RI


============
Richard Ishida
W3C

contact info:
http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ 

W3C Internationalization:
http://www.w3.org/International/ 
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Addison Phillips [wM] [mailto:aphillips@webmethods.com] 
> Sent: 14 July 2004 12:51
> To: Bjoern Hoehrmann; Richard Ishida
> Cc: www-international@w3.org
> Subject: RE: W3C I18N Group recharters: Input invited
> 
> Hi Bjoern,
> 
> Thanks for the comments. I'm sure Martin will repair the IG 
> link shortly.
> 
> With regard to the Core WG draft charter, you're right that 
> the mailing list stuff needs to be clarified. The intention 
> is to have all of the materials and proceedings of the 
> Working Group be public, including the mailing lists, with 
> one exception: we will have a mailing list that is 
> member-only solely for the purpose of discussing reviews of 
> member confidential materials and that mailing list's archive 
> will likewise be restricted. We've considered going the TAG 
> route and just making everything public and warning groups 
> that we only do reviews on published materials (and hence 
> public materials), as well as reminding groups that joint 
> meetings/discussions/etc. with us are public.
> 
> Note that currently the core task force is 
> member-confidential. Many of us feel that because this is not 
> inclusive it is a hindrance to participation in our work: we 
> can leverage the community better.
> 
> I'll let Richard comment on the GEO charter.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Addison
> 
> Addison P. Phillips
> Director, Globalization Architecture
> webMethods | Delivering Global Business Visibility 
> http://www.webMethods.com Chair, W3C Internationalization 
> (I18N) Working Group Chair, W3C-I18N-WG, Web Services Task 
> Force http://www.w3.org/International
> 
> Internationalization is an architecture. 
> It is not a feature.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-international-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of 
> Bjoern Hoehrmann
> > Sent: 2004?7?13? 20:49
> > To: Richard Ishida
> > Cc: www-international@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: W3C I18N Group recharters: Input invited
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > * Richard Ishida wrote:
> > >Proposed Draft Core Charter: 
> > http://www.w3.org/2004/06/i18n-recharter/core-charter.html
> > 
> > This links to
> > 
> >   http://www.w3.org/2004/06/i18n-recharter/IG-charter
> > 
> > which returns status 300 and refers to
> > 
> >   http://www.w3.org/2004/06/i18n-recharter/ig-charter.html
> > 
> > which is apparently team-only. I have comments on these 
> charters, but 
> > I would first like to know whether you intend to make the 
> IG charter 
> > proposal public.
> > 
> > At a first glance, I am confused by the Confidentiality 
> section of the 
> > Core WG charter which seems contradictory, it states
> > 
> > [...]
> >   The work of this Working Group is public, although 
> exceptions will be
> >   made for specification review of member confidential 
> material, with
> >   exceptions made by the Chair with the Working Group's agreement.
> >   (Non-public reviews are generally rare, since most 
> specifications are
> >   published working drafts and thus public). However, to ensure that
> >   member confidentiality is preserved where necessary, the 
> WG mailing
> >   list archive will be accessible by members and invited 
> experts only.
> > [...]
> > 
> > The last sentence clearly states that all proceedings of 
> the Working 
> > Group will be member-confidential except when W3C Process requires 
> > that information is made publicly available, such as reviews of 
> > Technical Reports. If that is the intention, the text is at 
> least very 
> > misleading as e.g. the TAG charter or the QA WG charter require far 
> > more information be publicly available than the proposed 
> charter. So 
> > what is the intention here?
> > 
> > >Proposed Draft GEO Charter: 
> http://www.w3.org/2004/06/i18n-recharter/geo-charter.html
> 
> It states
> 
> [...]
>   www-international@w3.org: TIn line with W3C's general commitment to
>   openness, technical discussions that are not 
> member-confidential will
>   be carried out on the public mailing list www-international@w3.org.
>   Members of this WG will be automatically subscribed to
>   www-international@w3.org. 
> [...]
>   The work of this WG (except for public discussions carried out on
>   www-international@w3.org) is covered by the W3C member 
> confidentiality
>   agreement. In particular, the WG mailing list archive is 
> accessible by
>   members and invited experts only. 
> [...]
> 
> It is again not clear to me what you mean here. So far, the 
> proceedings of the I18N GEO Task Force were publicly 
> available through the public public-i18n-geo@w3.org mailing 
> list. The charter now suggests to some extend that you intend 
> to use www-international as Working Group mailing list and 
> only use the new w3c-i18n-geo@w3.org (or 
> member-i18n-geo@w3.org which seems more likely) for 
> member-confidential discussions. Or you want to make all 
> proceedings of group member-confidential and sometimes post 
> to www-international@w3.org as you see fit. So what do you 
> mean here exactly?
> 
> In either case, could you please explain in detail how it 
> will contribute to the success of the proposed Working Group 
> to make the group less public than it was before as a task force?
> 
> regards.
> 
Received on Monday, 19 July 2004 13:27:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:03 GMT