Re: Proposed Working Mode

Rob, everyone

maybe it is worth adding that we may want to include in the discussions the possibility to postpone issues to be considered by a re-chartered, new WG. Whether the group will be rechartered (after the current charter runs out) or not and, if yes, when is, of course, not decided at this point, but having a clear list of issues that are flagged accordingly is actually a good input for a rechartering process. And it is also a help to separate the issues from those that we definitely must handle before the end of the current charter.

Ivan

> On 5 Nov 2015, at 05:45, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> As mentioned on the call today, I'd like to propose that we try and take a breadth first rather than depth first approach to our issues.
> 
> To be discussed, but as fodder for that discussion:
> 
> Our charter runs out October 1st 2016. By then we should have at least the model, protocol and findtext specifications in Candidate Recommendation with a good set of tests and implementations.   There is no guarantee that the group would be rechartered to continue work, however it's a much easier sell if we can demonstrate concrete and steady progress towards delivering the specifications that we've signed up to produce.  Given all the various timing issues, having the specs in a reasonable state by April/May 2016 seems like an important deadline to try and meet.
> 
> In order to get to that state, we need to streamline our process somewhat to avoid bogging down on any one issue or having non-productive calls.
> 
> My proposal is that we focus our energies around the github issues and are conscientious to transcribe important list discussions as new issues or comments on existing ones.  On the calls we can then pre-select a set of issues to discuss with a timebox of around 15 minutes per issue.  At the end of the time allocated, we should see what the feeling is around any proposed way forwards with a straw poll, but move on to other issues regardless of the outcome.  Any objections should be then written up with a description of what it would take to change their mind or an alternative solution that would address the requirement.  These would go to the issue (or the list) over the week following the call so that they can be thought about and addressed the next time the issue comes up.  Conversely, if everyone is happy with the proposal, then great, and the editors can move forwards to writing up the resolution.
> 
> At this stage, I feel (as editor and chair) that there is insufficient time to make sweeping changes to the current approaches. We can't afford another 3 month discussion on roles and expect to meet the timeline needed.  This we need a process that will not railroad decisions despite valid technical concerns or squash productive discussions, but we also need to make progress and determine whether concerns are valid and the discussions actually productive :)
> 
> This would not cover non technical issues, nor issues that span WGs. Frederick and I would treat these as guidelines to ensure progress rather than hard and inflexible rules to squash discussions.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Rob
> 
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704