Fwd: Data on WG participation / activity / progress

-------- Message transféré --------
Sujet :  Data on WG participation / activity / progress
Date de renvoi :  Sun, 11 Jan 2015 07:56:50 +0000
De (renvoi) :  public-success-fail@w3.org
Date :  Sun, 11 Jan 2015 07:56:18 +0000
De :  Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Pour :  public-success-fail@w3.org <public-success-fail@w3.org>
Copie à :  public-w3process@w3.org <public-w3process@w3.org>, 
w3c-ac-forum@w3.org <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>



[cross-posting to the Process CG and AC lists to encourage anyone 
interested to join the discussion in the public-success-fail@w3.org 
mailing list and the task force wiki 
https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities/w3c_work_success 
<https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities/w3c_work_success#Mining_the_.2FTR_page.2C_participation_lists.2C_mailing_lists.2C_and_issues_lists_for_patterns> .]



As you may recall, the AB has created a public task force to try to 
identify W3C work that is not on the road to success.


I have made some progress on the planned task to mine data to identify 
WGs who have had the least activity and progress in recent years. There 
is now a tablemashing up data from the working groups database, and the 
mailing list archive. SeeWG Data Mining 
<https://www.w3.org/wiki/WG_Data_Mining>for links to the data and a 
description of the fields in the table.

 >From a simple analysis based on sorting the table by a) having an 
expired charter for multiple years, b) few messages in their mailing 
lists in the last half of 2014, c) few technical reports published 
2013-2014, and zero CRs / PRs / Recommendations 2013-2015, the following 
WGs scored near the bottom on on multiple criteria:

  * Web Notifications
  * Forms
  * Near Field Communications
  * Voice Browser

See WG Data Mining Analysis 
<https://www.w3.org/wiki/WG_Data_Mining_Analysis> for more information.

Please contribute to the wiki and join the discussion. I have not done 
any qualitative research to investigate whether these WGs are actually 
on the road to failure, and some of this data collecting and analysis 
was done "by hand" and could have errors. Please consider joining the 
task force to help interpret/correct this data and analysis. I'm sure 
that more sophisticated data science could yield lots more interesting 
insights into the questions the task force is addressing, so feel free 
to contribute your expertise!