Re: Proposed Working Mode

Definitely!  Having a clear definition of what we would work on, and
hopefully having at least half-formed proposals in that space, seems a much
stronger argument towards rechartering rather than extending and closing.
Thanks for adding that, Ivan :)

Rob

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305