Re: XGs, IGs, TFs, flexibility and scope -- Re: [minutes] eGov IG Call, 24 June 2009

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Jose M. Alonso wrote:
> Well, we can give hints in the charter as I mentioned right above. What about 
> that?
>
> -- Jose
>

Perfect!
Hints in the charter about how we will organize the TF sounds right.


Anne L. Washington
Standards work - W3C egov - washingtona@acm.org
Academic work - George Washington University - annew@gwu.edu
Work work - Library of Congress - awashington@crs.loc.gov


> El 30/06/2009, a las 3:52, Anne Washington escribió:
>> Thanks for getting back to me.
>> 
>> I didn't want to form Incubator Groups/XG (we have enough initialisms 
>> already)! I wanted to imitate their style when we create our 
>> taskforces/TFs. A better example of the XG page clarity would be 
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/how-to.html
>
> Ah, got it.
>
>
>> I understand not wanting to name the TFs in Charter 2. When and if we 
>> establish the other TF's I'd suggest we follow a simple repeatable format 
>> so they can seamlessly be established and maintained. Rachel's editorial TF 
>> is a great example.
>> 
>> Below are some of the bits I liked from XG mixed with Rachel's rubric. Each 
>> section is followed by a question that it answers
>> 
>> Coordinator: Who do I contact? Who is responsible?
>> Authors: Who else is working on this taskforce?
>> Meetings: Is there a regular time commitment?
>> Timeframes: When are things due?
>> Assigning Tasks: What is the process for generating and finishing tasks?
>> Joining a TF: How do I become a part of the taskforce?
>> Deliverable & Publications: What will we have to show at the end?
>> TF Duration: How long (days, months, years) is the TF active?
>> TF Group procedures: How do participants on the TF interact, if at all?
>> 
>> If we can make the TF work clear, it will be simpler for those who 
>> volunteer to devote their attention to the task at hand instead of on 
>> formulating procedures. To make it easier for new TF coordinators, I could 
>> set up a wiki template or write a how-to page for the wiki whenever we are 
>> ready for that step.
>
> This sounds very good to me and I think I now understand your point well. We 
> could put something in the charter, maybe not mentioning the TFs but stating 
> what you mention above, e.g. "IG could establish TFs to tackle specific 
> issues of special interest to the group. TFs must be proposed to the Chairs 
> and can only be established by group consensus. When establishing a TF it 
> should be made clear @@add here the bits above??@@"
>
>
>> Something to keep in mind after Charter2 is finalized.
>
> Well, we can give hints in the charter as I mentioned right above. What about 
> that?
>
> -- Jose
>
>
>> Anne L. Washington
>> Standards work - washingtona@acm.org
>> Academic work - George Washington University
>> 
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Jose M. Alonso wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Anne,
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure about the most interesting bits for you at the pointer below 
>>> compared to the way this IG is organized... in fact, if you read any XG 
>>> charter and our current charter you'll quickly find the similarities.
>>> 
>>> Incubator Groups (XG) have only three main differences (when compared to 
>>> IGs):
>>> * Their initial goal is just to explore a given topic area
>>> * They are directly initiated by W3C Members (charter is not approved by 
>>> W3C Advisory Committee)
>>> * The don't have a W3C staff contact
>>> 
>>> I've been recently recommended (again) not to specifically name the TFs in 
>>> Charter 2 but the areas of interest then IG could start TFs as needed.
>>> 
>>> Rachel already started one, the Editorial TF. She has been adding info the 
>>> the TF page with mission, goals, operating procedures...
>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/EditorialTF
>>> 
>>> If you want to highlight the bits in the XG procedures that you liked the 
>>> most, I could try respond more to the point. I'm all for improving the way 
>>> we work.
>>> 
>>> You all heard me say I'm lowering every barrier I can and, honestly, I 
>>> currently don't see any to participation. I'd like to hear from you and 
>>> others the ones you see and we could discuss if and how to lower those, 
>>> too.
>>> 
>>> I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question but hope this helps a bit as an 
>>> answer.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jose.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> El 24/06/2009, a las 23:27, Anne Washington escribió:
>>>> Josema,
>>>> I was poking around the W3C Incubator Group site you sent during the call 
>>>> today. I noticed that there was a page with procedures for those who 
>>>> wanted to get involved. http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/procedures.html
>>>> If we had that sort of organization for our task forces, it would be 
>>>> easier for me and perhaps others to find like-minded people and to know 
>>>> what document to produce. Since I am unfamiliar with all the W3C rules, 
>>>> this may not be applicable. However, the Incubator group is working with 
>>>> the same need for flexibility and scope of content and they found this 
>>>> way to organize themselves.
>>>> Following Kevin's "aggregator not initiator" concept, it seems crucial 
>>>> that part of our process is making it easy for government employees to 
>>>> participate. We need to make it obvious how new people can drop in and 
>>>> lend a hand. The more clear we can make the committment and scope of 
>>>> work, the easier it will be to expand our ranks.
>>>> Anne L. Washington