Re: Updated task force proposal; comments welcome

On 20 Aug 2010, at 4:24 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I finally had a chance to catch up on email and read the current  
> proposal. I like the general direction. Thanks go to Ian for  
> managing to produce such a nicely structured document out of the  
> rather free form discussions/ramblings we've had.  Here are some  
> comments and answers to the open questions:

Thanks, Arnaud. I hear some high-level themes in your comments:

  * For community groups, leave the details to the groups and they  
will sort it out for themselves.
  * For legal questions, ask the PSIG. :)

See more notes below.

_ Ian

>
> I suggest the name "Community Innovation Forum".
>
> As for the tool to be used, if people really think mailing lists are  
> out of fashion I think we should use a "standard" online forum  
> coupled with an rss feed.
> Topics/threads could have a rating/voting system which would allow  
> people to weigh in on their importance and which would "Allow easy  
> tracking of prominent discussions."

Do you have experience with particular tools that would meet your  
requirements?

> Question: Suggest small number of moderators; how are they chosen?  
> Staff?. One proposal is a small number of staff, possibly assisted  
> by publicly acknowledged volunteers.
>
> The ad hoc groups we want to attract do not have a staff and yet  
> somehow they manage. I wouldn't want the W3C staff to commit to any  
> level of hand holding on a group basis because unlike  
> Standardization activities that are managed and can be kept to a  
> reasonable amount the number of these can quickly get out of hands,  
> sucking in staff resources away from member supported activities.

Our experience with the Incubator Activity is that:

  * It does consume staff resources
  * It consumes much less than the same number of WGs
  * Those groups with some staff investment seem to appreciate it and  
benefit from it.

I think some lightweight moderation of the forum will be useful to  
help mentor newcomers, and to help keep the staff aware of new ideas.  
I imagine it will consume some resources, but it will be worth it.

> Question: How are Community Supporters chosen?
>
> I say: leave it to the community to figure this out. In my  
> experience, in every community they are natural leaders and people  
> willing to help and take a more active role. Let it happen on its own.
>
> Question: In Apache projects, there are various levels of  
> responsibility that you can have based on reputation. In an Apache  
> progress, for instance, you get committer privileges. Are there  
> analogous privileges for a Community Group (e.g., write access to  
> the spec, or distinct mailing lists where one is world readable but  
> only writable by select people)?
> Question: Should we have some mechanism for granting write access to  
> documents? This might be more stringent than the ability to post to  
> a list.
>
> That, I think, is reasonable. I can see how someone would have to be  
> voted in before being given editing privileges. However, it raises a  
> question on how to bootstrap the process. This is something that  
> isn't the most transparent in Apache for that matter.
>
> Keep track of Community Group participants' employers so that we can  
> contact them for organizational commitments
>
> I think for the sake of transparency participants should be required  
> to disclose their affiliations. When it comes I don't put much faith  
> in the idea of chasing people's employers to get licensing  
> commitments from them after the fact but OWF seems to believe it's a  
> viable option so I maybe wrong. In any case, this is something for  
> PSIG to discuss.
>
> Question: We need experienced editors. How do we bring new editors  
> to the community?
>
> Same remark as for the Community Supporters. Let it happen. The  
> community can figure this out on its own.
>
> 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)?
>
> I think rebranding is useful because it will help communicate W3C is  
> offering something new. Given that the goal is to attract ad hoc  
> groups out there we need to have a good communication plan around  
> this to make it successful.
>
> Question: should there be a minimal level of support?
>
> Yes. Although it's not bullet proof by any means and quite  
> arbitrary, I think a minimum of three people or so would be good to  
> eliminate the most obvious junk.
>
> Question: Should we engage designers to develop a new visual brand  
> for these new offerings?
>
> I think that's really up to the staff and the Advisory Board to  
> decide whether it's worth the expense and whether the W3C can afford  
> such an expense.
>
> Question: For Web Innovation Forum and Community Groups, should  
> participants have disclosure obligations over Rec track documents  
> according to the W3C Patent Policy. This may affect whether some  
> organizations allow their employees to participate in these  
> lightweight groups, even if disclosure is limited to personal  
> knowledge.
>
> I think this is best left to PSIG to answer.
>
> Question: Will Members ask that employee accounts be approved by  
> Members?
>
> While it's convenient for large companies to have the W3C force  
> participation approval by the AC rep it's merely a convenience and  
> whether the W3C does offer such a service or not doesn't prevent  
> companies to vet participation from employees.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Program Director, Global Open Standards, IBM Open  
> Source & Standards Policy
>

--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447

Received on Monday, 23 August 2010 12:33:59 UTC