Re: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

Some quick comments.

In general, I like the Interest group approach versus the working group.  I think there is a tremendous amount of "work" to be done that can be done quickly without the normative process.

As to separate groups, I'm undecided. I can see the need to separate the discussions on some level (as in handling textual data in a document versus handling video/audio data versus handling social media emerging technologies).  Such would lead me to a belief in separate groups. I'd like to see us focus on small definable BPs within specific issues areas (again, like how to deal with social media), which could at length lead to a 2nd edition of a recommendation that attempts to tie them back together.

davemc


On 5/18/09 4:19 AM, "Jose M. Alonso" <josema@w3.org> wrote:

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...

--
Dave McAllister
Director, Standards and Open Source
650-523-4942 (GC)
408-536-3881 (Office)
Dwmcallister (Skype, Aim, YIM)
http://blogs.adobe.com/open