- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:00:07 -0500
- To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, "public-vision-newstd@w3.org" <public-vision-newstd@w3.org>
On 13 Aug 2010, at 3:38 PM, Michael Champion wrote: >> I'd suggest that we aren't looking for *all new ideas* related to >> the Web, that might >> result in an overload of crazy people. I'm thinking maybe call it the >> "New Standards Forum@. > > How about "New Proposals Forum" ? Or "Brainstorming Forum"? Or "New Idea Forum"? > Or something that puts some boundaries on the appropriate > discussion, but doesn't restrict it to "standards". We do NOT want > to imply that what comes out of the forum is a "standard", nor do > we want to exclude discussion of test cases, best practices, and > other useful work that isn't necessarily a "standard." Agreed. _ Ian > > Michael Champion > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org [mailto:public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org > ] On Behalf Of Harry Halpin > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 1:32 PM > To: ij@w3.org > Cc: public-vision-newstd@w3.org > Subject: Re: Updated task force proposal; comments welcome > > I think we should be very upfront about articulating the value > proposition of this proposal. So add as an intro: > > "As the massive success Web has grown exponentially quickly, the W3C > needs to remain the place for new standards. In order to accomplish > this, the W3C should crowd-source new standardization and innovation > from the entire Web, not just the Team and Members. This community- > driven process should allow experimental proposals from anywhere on > the Web to percolate in a bottom-up fashion into a W3C > Recommendations standards process, allowing both a high amount of > maturity and backing for new W3C Recommendation work and > decentralizing the workload for the Team and Members." > > More open process = Less work and better standards > > (well, I hope!) > > > 2.1 and 2.1.4 "New Ideas Forum" > > I'd suggest that we aren't looking for *all new ideas* related to > the Web, that might result in an overload of crazy people. I'm > thinking maybe call it the "New Standards Forum@. > > - Question: Suggest small number of moderators; how are they chosen? > Staff? -> Just have one or more Team Contacts for New Ideas/ > Standards Forum. The term "moderator" may be a bit harsh for some > people, although that is what they will be doing. Maybe let them > recruit volunteers. > > - 2.1.5 Add a bullet to the Community Group details noting that > "Existing groups that form outside the W3C that are hosted > informally on other listservs (such as Google Groups) or have their > own process may also vote to become W3C community groups and may do > so with the help of Communiy Supporters" > > This is *important*, as otherwise we exclude all groups and efforts > that don't come from the new ideas forum. Given that lots of groups > already exist, we want to involve them easily and provide an easy- > access point for them. > > 2.1.6 - Note on Classical standards track. This makes the proposal > sound completely incompatible with traditional W3C process. Instead, > it's a new and complimentary process. While maybe over time it could > replace the classical standards track process, we don't want to > paint it as incompatible. > > "Note that this process does not mean that the W3C is changing the > Working Group process except in minor ways, but simply modifying the > existing IG and XG so they can reach their full potential and allow > an easy way for communities currently outside the W3C have their > work be brought to the W3C and enter the WG process if needs be." > > - "Question: Should we reuse the name "Interest" or "Incubator" > instead of "Community?" Or is the rebranding useful (and the > processes will be sufficiently different that it is worth the new > name)?" > > Yes. > > However, we may want to change a lot of the "do not" such as "do > not" have a charter to "may have a charter", and so allow Community > groups that want charters and the ability publish reports, W3C > Notes, etc. to do so if they are approved to do so explicitly. This > would allow existing IGs and XGs to become community groups without > changing anything they're doing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 21:00:10 UTC