Re: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

> ...
>>  + a set of small docs with guidance?
>>   (could be recs or not)
>
> I am not sure what these "small docs" would do that would not be  
> included in BP and the rewritten Note, but am open to suggestion.  
> Are you thinking of technical documents that would be more of a how- 
> to?  a series of case studies of particularly effective practices?

I was thinking of small how-to like things, e.g. techniques to  
identify and expose OGD, but also identification of scenarios to do  
so. More how-to than case studies.

>  The suite of ARIA documents could be a model, I suppose.

Maybe... I like this how-to piece:
http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices/#accessiblewidget

>  This one requires more consideration and could be decided after  
> being chartered, is that not so?  or do we need to state our entire  
> scope of work at the time of charter?

As specific as possible is always welcome, but we can definitely leave  
some room as we did first time. More on charters:
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups#WGCharter


>>  + a second version of the Note?
>>   (no need to be a rec, as you know)
>
> Yes, the Note must be rewritten for coherence, narrative flow,  
> conclusions, etc.

Heard several saying this. I don't have an opinion yet besides that  
this should be done if there are group members willing to take on this  
task.


>> 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...
>
> If we are saying that we will produce normative standards and expect  
> eGov practitioners around the world to begin to claim "conformance"  
> to these standards,  that is a mighty undertaking.  Think of the  
> arduous processes around WCAG2 and HTML5.  Also, eGov is a bit less  
> easily defined because of cultural influences, history, forms of  
> government etc.  I would advise that we not commit to normative  
> output at this time, but as previously stated, happy to hear another  
> point of view.

Ok, thanks. I think I'm more of a non-normative opinion so far.


> Please let me know if this is the type of input needed and/or if I  
> have overlooked any questions.

Very much so, thanks!
If you have something more specific in mind about the content we  
should produce, please share it, too.

Cheers,
Jose.


> Thanks,
> Sharron
>
>> [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 Wednesday, 20 May 2009 11:51:16 UTC