- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:15:01 -0500 (EST)
- To: public-social-web-talk@w3.org
Quick note: It is possible for WGs to have internal task-forces, although most seem to get along without them. Given participation levels and the fact that XG's are supposed to be light-weight and have, never to my knowledge, had task-forces, reinforces my argument against a task-force based model. More importantly, note that one can contribute to a document without being an editor, much less being part of a task force. Most importantly, just because there is not a task force does not mean that the topic will not be covered. Creating a task force and creating special titles does not necessarily lead to more work actually being done. I think the topics of the task forces should all be covered, and they are more well-served being covered without any additional layer of bureaucracy. One example could be HTML5 [1]. It has hundreds of active members, including all major browser vendors, and it has a SINGLE task force, which is devoted to communicating and co-ordination between HTML5 and XForms WGs. A smaller and more usual example would be the RDF and HTML Taskforce, chartered to communicate between XHTML2 and the Semantic Web Deployment WG [2]. [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/ -harry On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Harry Halpin wrote: > I feel the proposed charter may be too large, due to having too many > deliverables (15 at my last count). A smaller charter with (5) deliverables > was written earlier. I propose reverting to the earlier charter, and want > this discussed at the telecon. Most other W3C XGs have a SINGLE > deliverable, a final report. I recommend people read the "Quick Start Guide > to Incubator Groups" by the W3C and look at the charters of other XGs. [1] > > Also, I believe there is a misunderstanding of the nature of task-forces. > Usually task forces are created to communicate *in-between* existing working > groups, not *within* working groups. If there are internal task-forces, will > they have separate lists or telecons? Unless this is so, there is no reason > to have separate task-forces. I propose instead we keep the XG simple. Since > this proposed charter has therefore become unwieldy [2], I propose that we > return to the simpler earlier charter [3]. IMHO I believe the task force > model will create a level of unnecessary bureaucracy. > > W3C Process has been developed over years of experience developing > specifications like HTML, XML, and more. Having a good and tested process is > a good thing. I think it should only be changed as needed, and kept simple. > > Note that deliverables are the contract of the Incubator Group to the W3C, > and it is expected deliverables will be completed within the XG's time frame > (1 year) and have a high-level of quality. > > Extra telecon time can be reserved as needed and task-forces or separate > list-servs can be created as needed once the group begins. In general, an > open, transparent process with minimal overhead is the way to go. If there > is lots of activity, we can ask to be made an activity with separate working > groups after a year. > > If confused by W3C Process, I suggest people look at the W3C Process document > as well for information about charters and W3C Process in general [4]. This > applies especially to people who are asking for deviations from standard W3C > process. > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/xg-guide > [2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/UnifiedSocialXG > [3] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebXGCharter > [4] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/ > > > -- --harry Harry Halpin Informatics, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 10:15:36 UTC