Re: transitions to Working Group'

Milton
the reason why I am hesitant to consider the transition now, is because
although we have managed to rustle up a good portfolio of  related
activites from individual members, there has been no joint activity nor
discussions

A WG needs to commit to deliver or it fails

Imho, if at least 5 people make some commitment to deliver work, the group
can make transition otherwise better stay informal

Have revised the form to include statement of commitment from members,
*http://tinyurl.com/mnr3fqe <http://tinyurl.com/mnr3fqe>*

 if something crops up, we ll resubmit the form

Found these guidelines for WG, hope they still hold
http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/groups.html

Thanks

PDM






On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:07 PM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Correct me if I am wrong. There are three categories of issues to consider
> when transitioning from Community group to Work Group.
>
> (1) Mission, objectives and program outline, including projects and tasks
> (2) Governance and procedures (3) Contributions made by members
>
> The problem lies in (1) and (3), of which (1) is the most critical. If we
> cannot resolve (1) before May 5 next we must not transition.
>
> The form seems fine to me.
>
>
>
> Milton Ponson
> GSM: +297 747 8280
> PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
> Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
> Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for
> sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide by creating ICT
> tools for NGOs worldwide and: providing online access to web sites and
> repositories of data and information for sustainable development
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
> This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
> individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
>   On Monday, April 21, 2014 7:18 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>  Sure Milton-
>
> Do I gather that you think we are ready?
>
> is there something we should expect to happen before May 1st?
>
> I just checked the dashboard for a polling facility
> but could not find it
>
> is this form OK?
> *http://tinyurl.com/mnr3fqe <http://tinyurl.com/mnr3fqe>*
>
> PDM
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:16 PM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
> metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Can we take unitl like May 1, 2014 to try to finalize a transition? If by
> May 1 next we do not all feel comfortable about this we can do a poll and
> take a consensus based decision.
>
> regards
>
>
> Milton Ponson
> GSM: +297 747 8280
> PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
> Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
> Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for
> sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide by creating ICT
> tools for NGOs worldwide and: providing online access to web sites and
> repositories of data and information for sustainable development
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
> This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
> individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
>    On Sunday, April 20, 2014 3:02 AM, Paola Di Maio <
> paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>   Greetings SWISIG members
>
> Yesterday I filled out a form to W3C  more or less saying we are not
> ready yet to transition to WG, (I reply quickly sometimes not to forget)
>
> Only after hitting the send button
> it occurred to me I should have consulted with co-chair and group members
>
> We can change our response til 10 May, so if enough ppl think
> we should transition this year, please stepfforward and
> state your commitment to make things happen, and we'll resubmit
>
> Otherwise, let's see if plans mature in their own time
>
> Thanks, happy Spring Holidays to all
>
> PDM
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Paola Di Maio via WBS Mailer* <webmaster@w3.org>
> Date: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 7:45 AM
> Subject: [wbs] response to 'Determining which Community and Business
> Groups transitions to Working Group'
> To: paola.dimaio@gmail.com, team-community-process@w3.org
>
>
> The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Determining
> which
> Community and Business Groups transitions to Working Group' (public) for
> Paola Di Maio.
>
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Your Community Group or Business Group
> > ----
> > Please, name the Community Group or Business Group for which you are
> > submitting answers.
> >
> >
> Name of your Community Group or Business Group: SEMANTIC WEB INTERFACES
> (SWI) SIG
>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > State of your Community Group or Business Group
> > ----
> > Is your Community Group or Business Group:
> >
> >
>
>  * ( ) Active and ongoing and nearing completion
>  * ( ) Inactive because it has completed its work
>  * (x) Active and ongoing and far from completion
>  * ( ) Inactive because the original scope is no longer relevant or because
> the CG never got momentum
>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Goal of your Community Group or Business Group
> > ----
> > Is the goal of your Community Group or Business Group:
> >
> >
>
>  * (x) To provide a specification
>  * ( ) To be a discussion forum for specifications done elsewhere
>  * ( ) Other (please specify)
> You checked "other", please specify:
> a high level specificationn
>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Status of the spec of your Community Group or Business Group
> > ----
> > What are your specification transition plans?
> >
>
>  * ( ) We have already handed off all or part of a specification to a
> Working Group.
>
>  * ( ) We plan to request that a specification transition to a Working
> Group within six months.
>
>  * ( ) We have a specification that is a candidate for transition to a
> Working Group but have no schedule yet for doing so.
>  * (x) We do not plan to transition a specification to a Working Group
> (provide details in the next question).
>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > No transition to a Working Group
> > ----
> > We do not expect to transition to a Working Group for the following
> > reasons (check all that apply):
> >
> >
>
>  * [x] Too early, insufficient number of implementations yet.
>  * [ ] Too narrow, not a key part of the Open Web Platform.
>  * [ ] A Community Group or Business Group is good enough, Working Groups
> have too much bureaucracy.
>  * [ ] We suspect that key players will not want to make Working Group
> patent commitments.
>  * [ ] Too many key players are not Members of W3C and would not want to
> follow the work into a Working Group.
>  * [ ] Other (please specify).
> You checked "other", please specify:
> exploratory work,  community is  still loosely engaged so far
> maybe if one or two ears if things mature
>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Open comments
> > ----
> > Please, let us us know of anything you feel is relevant to complete your
> > answers.
> >
> >
> Comments:
>
>
> >
> > These answers were last modified on 19 April 2014 at 02:14:48 U.T.C.
> > by Paola Di Maio
> >
> Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed  until 2014-05-11.
>
>  Regards,
>
>  The Automatic WBS Mailer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>