Re: Slides: 2014 Update - Community and Business Groups

On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 14:20:27 +0200, Arthur Barstow <>  

> On 6/5/14 6:53 PM, Coralie Mercier wrote:
>>> I prepared a slide-set "2014 Update: Community and Business Groups"  
>>> for the AC meeting in case people had questions. They are public.
>> * slide "W3C leveraging Community Groups": w3-process CG bullet text  
>> corrected
>> * slide "Recent Transitions": added transition of final report of SVG  
>> Glyphs in OpenType CG
>> * slide "Transitions - longer-term": added Web Payments CG to call out  
>> role in March 2014 Web Payments Workshop
> Some additional feedback:
> * #4 - Re Member participants, where you have "X participants" is that  
> the total number of participants (including dups such as person Y is in  
> 5 CGs) or do you mean "unique" participants. (Not looking to create  
> extra work for you but having both pieces of data would be interesting.)

Unique participants.

> * #5 - for the "non-Member orgs" row, is that indeed unique  
> "organizations" [for some definition of "org"] or are you talking about  
> unique individuals. (I'm wondering how you categorized a bunch of people  
> that might have addresses.)

These are indeed unique organisations.

When people request an account they declare whether they're employed by a  
W3C Member organisation (drop-down menu), by a non-Member one, or that  
they have no affiliation. People using a address may fall in  
all three categories.

This is described further in this FAQ entry:

> * #12 - I think the gist of the first bullet is more like "Signing the  
> Contributor Agreement for groups that are explicitly NOT working on  
> specifications is cumbersome". [BTW, I understand this concern and would  
> hope KISS and common sense solutions would prevail (f.ex. the CG's  
> charter effectively says "NO specs will be created") and we don't go  
> down the path of creating different subclasses of CGs.]
> * #12 and #13 - both of these touch on a shortage of information (f.ex.  
> guidelines, BPs and such) about both how CGs transition to WGs and how  
> to evaluate new WG proposals. I think these types of issues are  
> important to address and perhaps a first step is to document the  
> issue(s). I just created a new "Business and Community Group Processes"  
> product <>. How  
> about we use that?

That would make me join that w3process CG, and get the full benefit of its  
lengthy conversations :)
That decision isn't mine; I don't feel strongly.

However, the Community Council has been documenting and tracking CG  
related things in their wiki:

> * #14 - I continue to think it was a mistake to call CG documents  
> "specifications". Do we collectively feel the `ship has sailed` on this?  
> If not, IMHO, changing the name to "reports" would be a better match and  
> eliminate the confusion with WG specifications.

Deliverables of CGs are called "Reports". However we refer to them as  
specifications when they are.
So it's difficult to avoid using the term. A question we ask for certain  
proposed groups is whether they're going to work on a specification. When  
I conduct the surveys, I ask the chairs whether their group works on specs  
or are discussion groups.

In slide #15, item "Review language used in CG Reports, styles" is  
designed to contribute to address this.

> Lastly, I agree with others about the need to close non-active CGs as  
> well as the need to provide a bit more general status of CGs (like what  
> David proposed).

Point taken.
We're going to close a few (7 or so) after the AC meeting.
I'm open to applying strictly  
<> and pruning.

Thanks, Art.


> -Thanks, AB

  Coralie Mercier  -  W3C Communications Team  - +336 4322 0001

Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 13:57:46 UTC