Re: Draft XG Charter

Hi,

Finally I have had beginning to have some time available.

Will take a look at the threads of email. But first the just distributed 
draft Charter.

I have no really significant comments on the text as it is.
A few stylistic remarks are described below.

/olle

==================================================================

Under Mission, it says:

   The mission of the Emergency Information Interoperability Framework
   Incubator Group, part of the Incubator Activity, is to *review* the
   current state-of-the-art in vocabularies used in the emergency
   management sector and to *investigate* the path forward via an
   emergency management systems information interoperability
   framework.

This is the introduction, so a wee bit of vagueness is permitted. It 
presently says " ... review ... and investigate ... ". Review should 
include describing them according to some model so that they can be 
compared to each other, and so that one can detect what needs are 
covered in what ways. Perhaps:

   The mission of the Emergency Information Interoperability Framework
   Incubator Group, part of the Incubator Activity, is to review *AND*
   *ANALYZE* the current state-of-the-art in vocabularies used in the
   emergency management sector and to investigate the path forward
   via an emergency management systems information interoperability
   framework.



Under Scope, it says:

   The Emergency Management sector encompasses a broad spectrum of the
   global community and covers both short term actions, such as the
   response to an natural hazard, medium-term actions, such as the
   recovery from such hazards, and long-term actions, such as
   mitigation activities and community resilience capacity building.

Style improvement:

   The Emergency Management sector encompasses a broad spectrum of the
   global community and covers both short term actions, such as the
   response to NATURAL HAZARDS, medium-term actions, such as the
   recovery from such hazards, and long-term actions, such as
   mitigation activities and community resilience capacity building.



Under Success Criteria, it says:

   promote the development of common standards and protocols for
   coordinating information gathered in anticipation of potential
   risks, and

"Promotion" is often a very time-consuming activity. Do not think much 
can be done during the life-time of an XG. Instead, one could say:

   *CONTRIBUTE* *TO* *RAISING* *AWARENESS* *OF* *NEED* for common
   standards and protocols for coordinating information gathered in
   anticipation of potential risks, and


 
Under Deliverables, it says:

   This XG will develop three specific outcomes.

Sounds better if it was expressed as:

   This XG will develop three specific RESULTS.



Under Dependecies, it says:

   This will include existing standards groups (eg OASIS, UN),
   national emergency management groups, and international resilience
   and relief organisations.

More correct if stated as:

   This will include existing standards groups (eg OASIS, UN),
   national emergency management *ORGANIZATIONS*, and international
   resilience    and relief organisations.


Under Decision Policy, it says:

   When deciding a substantive technical issue, the Chair may put a
   question before the group. The Chair must only do so during a group
   meeting, and at least two-thirds of participants in Good Standing
   must be in attendance. When the Chair conducts a formal vote to
   reach a decision on a substantive technical issue, eligible voters
   may vote on a proposal one of three ways: for a proposal, against a
   proposal, or abstain. For the proposal to pass there must be more
   votes for the proposal than against. In case of a tie, the Chair
   will decide the outcome of the proposal.

Improved English:

   When deciding *ON* a substantive technical issue, the Chair may put a
   question before the group. The Chair must only do so during a group
   meeting, and at least two-thirds of participants in Good Standing
   must be in attendance. When the Chair conducts a formal vote to
   reach a decision on a substantive technical issue, eligible voters
   may vote on a proposal *IN* one of three ways: for a proposal, against a
   proposal, or abstain. For the proposal to pass there must be more
   votes for the proposal than against. In case of a tie, the Chair
   will decide the outcome of the proposal.


---end---


Renato Iannella wrote:
>
> I have attached the source HTML for the draft Charter to this email
>
> Cheers...  Renato Iannella
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Olle Olsson   olleo@sics.se   Tel: +46 8 633 15 19  Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
	[Svenska W3C-kontoret: olleo@w3.org]
SICS [Swedish Institute of Computer Science]
Box 1263
SE - 164 29 Kista
Sweden
------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 08:47:28 UTC