- From: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:43:09 +0000
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, "public-vision-newstd@w3.org" <public-vision-newstd@w3.org>
Web Innovation Forum works for me Michael Champion On Aug 13, 2010, at 4:07 PM, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> 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 23:43:52 UTC