Re: charter and publication wrt W3C Process

I was thinking that having best practices and having use cases was the 
most obvious things to do. I think that the "small how-to" project of 
identifying and exposing OGD is actually a huge, but important project 
that I encompasses citations and indexing documents (hmmm perhaps 
schematizing repositories). Citations would be a big win that could help 
transform access and referencing govt. documents.

Another not-so-small project is to allow for a posting of what various 
governments are using and the standards they are using or breaking. 
Legislatures, executive and judicial organizations across the world use 
different authoring tools that often determine what is published online 
and how, the success in using standards or being accessible, how the 
governmental entities index/make searchable/usable the online documents 
and services, are all datum that we could help be collected. We don't 
need to even comment on the data collected, just make it reference-able 
for conversation. And this would help governments find out what software 
is available, especially if the software was developed internally and 
could be made available. In the United States alone there are thousands 
of governments (federal, state, municipal) using different standards and 
tools with different results, but no place to post and/or search for 
what they are all doing.

Daniel


Jose M. Alonso wrote:
>> ...
>>>  + 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/
>
>