Re: Draft Charter "Completed"

OK, that's fine with me.  I thought that something like that was necessary,
but goes to show what I know.

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>
> On 8 Dec 2011, at 1:35 PM, Roger Cutler wrote:
>
> > I have responded to these suggestions in the charter.  You may want to
> check the section on POC's in the Deliverables section -- I'm not positive
> that this is correct yet.  It did seem useful to me to indicate that the
> legal framework for this kind of collaboration could be an issue that needs
> to be dealt with on a case by case basis, although I didn't say exactly
> that.
>
> The charter says: "Contributions (e.g. ontologies, use cases, proof of
> concept demonstrations) may be submitted either by group members or from
> the public."
>
>   I urge you not to do that. If you want to contribute, you join the
> group. It's costly to try to go back and get commitments after the fact.
> And if people want to contribute, isn't that the most important part of
> participating in the group?
>
> Ian
>
>
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 7 Dec 2011, at 10:05 AM, Roger Cutler wrote:
> >
> > > I have roughed out a more-or-less complete draft charter for the Oil,
> Gas and Chemicals Business Group.  Comments and suggestions are most
> welcome, and in fact you can get into the Wiki page and edit it yourself.
>  As previously stated, however, if you do edit the charter it would be
> friendly to send me (and this discussion group) an email indicating in a
> general way "what" was done and if relevant "why".  There is no intention
> at this time to limit your editing -- I just want to be able to keep track
> of what's going on without digging through the change logs.  I say "at this
> time" because I think that the group could decide to define an "editor"
> function that has more control over certain documents, and in fact if we
> start developing deliverable documents I personally think that this might
> turn out to be desirable simply from a logistic point of view.  That's
> pretty much consistent with the way I think most WG's and IG's do things in
> the W3C, and probably with processes in most other collaboration
> environments.  [Ian:  Should this discussion go into the charter?]
> > >
> > > Note that the list of potential topics in the Scope section is pretty
> rough.  Help is particularly requested in this area, which one might
> actually consider the "meatiest" section of the charter.
> > >
> > > The most significant lack is probably in the "Dependencies and
> Liaisons" section.  It seems to me that it might be a good idea to make a
> separate page in the Wiki for this, particularly to document the various
> industry consortia and what kind of connection they have with Semantic Web
> technology.  At the moment, however, I'm tired of typing.
> > >
> > > Note that there is a separate Why Work in This Venue wiki page which
> is linked from the mission section of the charter.
> > >
> > > Ian:  You probably should read this draft fairly carefully.  I have
> included some statements that I think are consistent with W3C process, but
> I'm not positive.  Note particularly the discussion of "Contributions" in
> the Communications section.  I think that this is consistent with the
> spirit of the definition of BG's and CG's, but I was unable to find any
> statements on this that were completely clear to me.  If this section is
> not OK I think we need to work this issue.  I hope it's clear to you what
> my concerns here are.  Note also that I am using the words "contributions"
> and "submissions" pretty much interchangeably, and I'm not sure whether
> that's OK either.
> >
> > Hi Roger,
> >
> > First, thanks for putting this together. Charters are not required by BG
> or CG process, but I think they will be useful. It also helps me to see
> which bits need further explanation, etc.
> >
> > Some notes
> >
> > 1) "Policy with respect to patents and other intellectual property are
> covered by the Contributor License Agreement (CLA).". Please note that
> there are two agreements; the FSA is voluntary but the CLA sets
> expectations about its use.
> >
> > 2) "Here is a rough summary of primary similarities and differences
> between the W3C Patent Policy and the Community Group IPR policies.". I
> don't think that's so useful here. I'm not sure that the audience will be
> existing W3C Members who therefore need help understanding the differences
> from the policy they know.
> >
> > 3) I would therefore propose to just link to the cla, the fsa (final
> spec agreement), faq, and be done with it.
> >
> > 4) I am working on the process for publishing CG/BG specifications. I'm
> happy to tell you about it later; it's not complicated.  There will be UI
> to register a specification; we will display the specification information
> (and link to it wherever it is) on the group's home. And when the group
> publishes a final spec, there will be a form for making final spec
> commitments.
> >
> > 5) The only bit that concerned me is that "contributions" might not be
> public. At some point you will need to make public the group's
> specification (drafts, final version) and they would be public at that
> point. I want to see if you share this expectation:
> >   a) The "date of a contribution" will be the date when it is
> contributed to the group (whether public or not).
> >   b) The "date of inclusion" is when a contribution is actually included
> in a specification (at which point it will be public).
> >
> >  I call out these 2 dates since they are relevant within the CLA.
> >
> > 6) Remove "Team Contact" from the table at the top; BGs don't have Team
> Contacts.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> > Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
> >
> >
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
>
>