Re: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

Hi folks, here's my input. Please excuse me if I question stuff that's  
already been covered in the past year.

I'm currently wondering about audience. Who is this work for? Who does  
the IG want to read it, think about it, implement it? Who _needs_ to  
read it, think about it, implement it? I'd argue that the we should  
focus on using the IG to gain converts to the behaviors outlined in  
the Note you just published.

To that end here's what I think about the Q's Jose raised.

> 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.

Are there enough active members of the group to split into subgroups?  
I could see splitting groups into perhaps three categories: Policy  
(for the directors, managers, etc.), End-User interactions (G2C G2B,  
G2G, etc.) and Backoffice recommendations (how to implement the  
technology). But if there aren't enough folks involved, we might as  
well work together.

> * If we want current group alone:
>  + do we want it to publish normative stuff?
>    (we need a WG then)

I've no opinion on this as I'm not quite sure what all of it entails.

> * What sort of deliverables do we want to produce?
>  + a new W3C recommendation?
>   (note that even BPs can be recs, such as MWBP [8])

I Think BPs are a good idea, and could perhaps be tied into

>  + a set of small docs with guidance?
>   (could be recs or not)

The set of small docs with guidance is an idea I fully support for a  
couple of reasons.

1. Easier to produce and distribute in a timely manner (as a web  
designer, following the glacial pace of some of the W3C CSS and  
(X)HTML WGs is quite frustrating)
2. Allows the IG to keep itself "in the news" for people who are  
following this sort of thing with the added bonus of increasing the  
chances of getting more people interested in this sort of thing.
3. More likely for people to read the entirety of each document and  
act on items contained within.

>  + a second version of the Note?
>   (no need to be a rec, as you know)

I'm happy to help refine the construction of the current Note in the  
ways that Sharron mentioned.

Thanks and have a great evening!


Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 20:37:04 UTC