Re: Updated task force proposal; comments welcome

On 13 Aug 2010, at 3:32 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:

Hi Harry,

Thanks for comments, which I've endeavored to integrate. See one  
suggestion inline.

> 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"

How about:

  "Web Innovation Forum"

  _ Ian

>
> 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 23:07:32 UTC