- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of art.barstow@nokia.com <webmaster@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 12:12:01 +0000
- To: art.barstow@nokia.com,public-council@w3.org
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Survey of W3C Community and Business Groups' (public) for Arthur Barstow. --------------------------------- Overall Experience ---- Please rate your overall experience according to the following aspects: * Your overall experience with Community Groups and Business Groups.: [ No opinion ] * Have you found the Community Groups and Business Groups documentation adequate (FAQ, policy summaries, etc.)?: [ No opinion ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): Overall, I think the CG experiment has been very successful and I support it continuing (it is certainly way mo' bett'a than the so-called "Incubator Groups"). As an Advisory Committee rep, we had to create some new internal policies regarding participation. This required a bit more ramp up overhead than I expected. However, we are now over that hurdle and I think the benefits are clear. I am a member of six CGs. Some of them are doing nothing and should be closed; others are making some progress. Given a CG may have an extremely narrow scope or an almost unbounded scope, I think this diversity regarding activity and progress is to be expected. Here are some potential areas for CG improvement: 1. Clear Purpose and Scope - although it's good that CGs have the flexibility to determine their own scope, work mode, etc., the diversity can make difficult for an "outsider" to determine what exactly a CG is doing. As such, I think it would be helpful is there was at least some "normalization of CG home pages. In general, it sees like every CG home page should include a clear (as possible) statement about its scope (and if the scope changes, the statement updated accordingly). The scope should include: why the group was created; the intended audience/participants; enumerate the groups doing related work (e.g. other CGs, other WGs, other SSOs, etc.); etc. More specifically, when a CG home page is created, it should use a template that includes placeholders for the above information as well as the following: a. Participants' Expectations - every CG should document the roles and expectations of the group's "leaders" (e.g. Chair(s), document Editors, etc.) as well as the participation expectations for CG participants. b. Work Mode - every CG should document the group's "work mode". For example, the group is mail list only, the group will have f2f meetings, the group will have IRC meetings, etc. c. Decision Making - every CG should document how the group makes decision; what if any role does consensus play d. Milestones, Schedule & Plans - every CG should document what it expects to "deliver" and when e. Are We Done Yet? Requirement - every CG should document its life expectancy plan. Leaving a CG open when it is no longer active is a bit remiss and the CG's "leader(s)" (or the CG's creators if no leaders emerge) should close the CG when it is done or no longer active. (IOW, the group's leader(s) should periodically run the "if this CG closes, will anyone notice?" test.) 2. There should be mail list to discuss topics that cross CGs e.g. how do other CGs do X; what are other CGs doing to track issues, how can we have a voice conference, etc. (If such a list already exists, please let me know its name.) 3. Create a list for CG announcements. In particular I want to know when a CG publishes a document/specification. Re the questions about infrastructure, for CGs I think it's good enough "as is". If some additional work is needed, I would rather see W3C staff resources spent on advancing the OpenWebPlatform and let CGs figure how to take care of their infra needs. I haven't participated in any BGs so I have no comments about them. --------------------------------- Work Flow ---- Questions 4 through 9 focus on work flow. --------------------------------- Discovery ---- Did you find it easy to discover groups of interest to you? * ( ) Yes * ( ) No If not, why? (or any other comments): --------------------------------- Group Type Comparison ---- If you have experience in both Working Group and Community or Business Group, what advantages do you see for Working Groups? for Community or Business Groups? Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Decision-making ---- How is your Community or Business Group organized to make decisions? Have you reached decisions on challenging problems? We'd love to hear your successes or obstacles you've faced. Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Ensuring Progress ---- Are you satisfied with how the Community or Business Group makes progress? What would enable you to make better progress? Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Transition to Working Group ---- Do you expect to advance Community or Business Group deliverables to a W3C Working Group? Please use the comment field for any information about the transition (time frame, perceived obstacles or challenges). * ( ) Yes * ( ) No * ( ) In discussion but not decided * ( ) No idea Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Process, Patent and Copyright Policy, Contribution Agreements ---- Do you have any suggestions for changes to the Community Groups and Business Groups process, Contributor Agreement, or Final Specification Agreement that would facilitate participation? Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Overall User Interface ---- Please rate the usability of the following aspects: * The home page of your Community or Business Group: [ No opinion ] * Other parts of the Community and Business Group Web site.: [ No opinion ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- User Accounts ---- Please rate the usability of any of the following actions you carried out. * Requesting an account (if you did so just for Community Groups and Business Groups): [ No opinion ] * Updating your affiliation in your account (if you were asked to do so): [ No opinion ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Joining a Group ---- Please, select the case that applies to you and comment on your experience joining a group (via the click-through form). * ( ) I joined as a W3C Member employee, my request was processed by my organization's Advisory Committee Representative * ( ) I joined as a non-W3C Member employee, after getting my organization's patent and copyright commitment * ( ) I joined as an individual, unaffiliated with any organization Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Creating a Group ---- If you created a group, rate the usability of the following aspects: * Clarity of the process for proposing a group: [ No opinion ] * Clarity of the process by which people express support for a group: [ No opinion ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Group Operations ---- Rate the usability of any of the following operations you have carried out. * Choosing a chair (via checkboxes on the participants page): [ No opinion ] * Publishing a draft specification (available to Chairs only): [ No opinion ] * Publishing a final specification (available to Chairs only): [ No opinion ] * Making a final specification commitment (through the click-through form): [ No opinion ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Suggestion Box ---- What can we do to improve the experience of participating in a Community Group or Business Group, tools you would find useful, or changes to enable you to work more effectively? Feedback: --------------------------------- Testimonial ---- To help W3C spread the word about Community and Business Groups, we invite you to provide a 1-paragraph testimonial about your Community Group or Business Group experience that you authorize us to publicize. This is purely optional. Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): These answers were last modified on 9 September 2012 at 12:11:23 U.T.C. by Arthur Barstow Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/2012CGBGsurvey/ until 2012-09-30. Regards, The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Sunday, 9 September 2012 12:12:03 UTC