W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-poiwg@w3.org > August 2010

Re: The WG's Three Letters

From: Jens de Smit <jens.desmit@surfnet.nl>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 15:18:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4C5C0B9F.2090309@surfnet.nl>
To: cperey@perey.com
CC: Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>, public-poiwg@w3.org
>> I also wouldn't rule out that we may well have a better picture of
>> what needs standardizing beyond POI and recharter and possibly rename
>> too.
>>
> Sorry, I am not following you on the above sentence. Perhaps you are
> saying that a WG can begin with one charter, one name. Then, after
> achieving something (hopefully its charter), it redefines itself,
> defines new charter, new name.
> 
> In both options 1 and 2 above, those in the "fold" know. And it doesn't
> really matter what those outside know or do not know.
> 
> is there a scenario in which the name of the group is "AR WG" and the
> initial charter is to work on the POI data format with broad
> applicabilities?

Perhaps we could go take the "AR" or "POI" tag and spin it a bit to
prevent people from jumping to conclusions too quickly without inventing
a completely new term? Something along the line of "AR Formatting WG",
"AR Markup WG" or "AR and POI Formatting WG". Shorthands for those would
be ARF WG, ARM WG or ARPF WG respectively.

The idea is that the long name would be specific enough to give people
the gist of what the group is doing while the short name would identify
it accurately without giving people false impressions. In the end we'll
always need to explain what we do anyway, but by choosing a name that is
neither very broad nor very specific we may prevent people coming into
the group without huge misconceptions.

Regards,

Jens
Received on Friday, 6 August 2010 13:18:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:48:25 UTC