Re: charter and publication wrt W3C Process


Two more things I should have added before and forgot. Sorry.

* Do we want to stay as a work working in public or in Member-only  
   + This would affect the way we handle IEs since they would need
     W3C Member access.

My answer: keep the group public and as open as possible.

* Good standing: implies a serious commitment to the charter,  
applicable for WGs, not for IGs.

My answer: need to take into consideration if going normative, i.e. if  
we charter it as a WG.
Side note. We are 55 participants as of today (27 of them are IEs) --
but if you go through any meeting minutes you can get an idea of how  
many of us are regularly in meetings and calls.
Although there is no thing such as "not in good standing" in an IG, I  
think we need more serious commitment from a larger group base to take  
some tasks forward.

-- Jose

El 18/05/2009, a las 13:19, Jose M. Alonso escribió:
> 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, sorry).
> 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.
> Best,
> Jose.
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]
> [5]
> [6]
> [7]
> [8]
> --
> Jose M. Alonso <>    W3C/CTIC
> eGovernment Lead        

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:06:00 UTC