- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:32:55 +0100 (BST)
- To: public-vision-newstd@w3.org
* Question: How are Community Supporters chosen? I'd say open call for volunteers before launching from existing W3C member groups. Maybe do this once, and then from that select an initial volunteer team? * 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)? I'd let the community manage this, but to be honest, given that the W3C does not yet have social web infrastructure set-up for reputation management etc. (perhaps we should inspect Apache's closer), I think we should just the community handle that, but have the Community Supporter explain the kinds of roles to them, But we should keep brainstorming roles. * Question: We need experienced editors. How do we bring new editors to the community? Train via the Community Supporter, and encourage existing people who enjoy editing to train others. * Ideas include: Membership or invited expert (current); Member or invited expert but if came from a Community Group, non-Member employees have right to participate [challenge: IPR commitments from their employers]. I'd prefer that this option be settled by the charter, but it would require advice from PSIG etc. on members. The trick will be members who participated as individuals in CGs but then upon transition to WG can't get their employer to do IPR. * IP in general: Ideas include: none, OWFa, RF for Rec track, RF commitment that times out... Again, go for PSIG, but I think the entire point of starting the Innovation Forum and Community Working Group process is to get the IP up front as soon as possible. * 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)? +1 Community. * Question: should there be a minimal level of support? I'd say 3 members for an XG = 6 people for a CG. Otherwise it's too small and bound to die. * Question: Should we engage designers to develop a new visual brand for these new offerings? Yes. First ask for volunteer designs...then vote! * 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. Again, I would say "no" unless result of Community Group goes to "Rec" track. Question: Will Members ask that employee accounts be approved by Members? We should probably have people in CGs be able to participate as individuals (i.e. have W3C "individual" accounts), not company reps, but then we need to make sure IP from company doesn't stop possible Rec-track. Again, the goal should be to try to get as much IP on the table as soon as possible. So, *if possible* people that work for members should *try* to get member permission and IP disclosures. Also, why not move to some sort of OpenID-ish system for CGs? 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. I.e. the person should need an "individual" account or "member" account, if only to prevent spam :) Member account
Received on Monday, 23 August 2010 18:32:56 UTC