W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > May 2009

charter and publication wrt W3C Process

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 13:19:30 +0200
Message-Id: <18B1A0D3-65F6-45B2-AEC8-86189D3FAD8D@w3.org>
To: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Hi Group,

I was actioned on the last call to send a message about the new  
charter and publication options and how they relate to the W3C Process  
[1]. Here it is. I'll try to simplify as much as possible although  
it's not an easy topic. This closes ACTION-63.

eGovernment is an Activity at W3C. Activities can hold several groups.  
eGov at W3C just have one group, this eGov IG. Groups can be of  
different types [2], e.g. this one is an _Interest_ Group. Groups can  
produce a number of things: recommendations (standards), best  
practices, test suites...

Simplifying it a bit, group products can be divided into normative  
(recommendation track) and non-normative stuff. This is usually stated  
in the group charter beforehand. I encourage you all to re-read our  
current charter [3] to get an idea of the variables we need to take  
into account when developing the new one. Interest Groups don't do  
recommendation track work; in order to do so one needs to charter a  
_Working_ Group (WG) which have an even more strict process and some  
Patent Policy considerations [4]. The Visual representation of a WG  
progress per process document is available at [5] and the technical  
details at [6].

Group charters and activity proposals are sent to the W3C Membership  
for review and requesting approval. In our case, we (I) need to also  
develop a new eGov Activity proposal since it expires at the same time  
of the charter. Full charter creation process at [7] (Member-only,  

In terms of options we need to consider, there are some questions that  
can help:
* Do we want eGov Activity to hold more than one group? What for?
   + every group would need a separate charter, deliverables, etc.
* If we want current group alone:
   + do we want it to publish normative stuff?
     (we need a WG then)
* What sort of deliverables do we want to produce?
   + a new W3C recommendation?
    (note that even BPs can be recs, such as MWBP [8])
   + a set of small docs with guidance?
    (could be recs or not)
   + a second version of the Note?
    (no need to be a rec, as you know)

In summary: going normative is "stronger" but has more implications:  
patent policy matters, strongest coordination with other groups, more  
process-related stuff to deal with...

Those of you that have more experience in W3C Groups, please feel free  
to jump in and fill gaps I may have missed.


[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups#GAGeneral
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/eGov/ig-charter
[4] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/05-patentsummary
[5] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/AboutW3CSlides/images/groupProcess.png
[6] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#Reports
[7] http://www.w3.org/Guide/Charter
[8] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/

Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>    W3C/CTIC
eGovernment Lead                  http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 11:21:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:43:09 UTC