- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:00:10 -0500
- To: public-vision-newstd@w3.org
Hello,
Minutes from today's teleconf:
http://www.w3.org/2010/07/12-newstd-minutes.html
Available as text below.
_ Ian
====
New Standards Vision Task Force Teleconference
12 Jul 2010
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vision-newstd/2010Jul/0017.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/07/12-newstd-irc
Attendees
Arnaud, Eduardo, Larry, Harry, Ian.
Regrets: Dom, tlr, Chris Messina, karl
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Light review of current survey results
2. [6]How to start turning ideas into proposals?
3. [7]Liaison improvements
4. [8]Next meeting
5. [9]slides for the AB presentation
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 12 July 2010
<Arnaud> Ian, I can't join yet, I'll be a bit late
Light review of current survey results
Survey results ->
[11]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/newstd2/results
[11] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/newstd2/results
IJ observations on survey results ->
[12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vision-newstd/2010Jul
/0016.html
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vision-newstd/2010Jul/0016.html
IJ: Anybody look at results?
<hhalpin> I have looked at them.
[Just IJ for now]
<hhalpin> Interesting, a mix of W3C sort of folks and web developers
it seemed.
activities needing a host:
[13]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/newstd2/results#xq6
[13] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/newstd2/results#xq6
EG: There may be an OASIS TC working on BML (not sure)
IJ: Anyone know [14]http://openrecommender.org?
[14] http://openrecommender.org/?
<hhalpin> Strong +1 on not having "two-tiered" process, but on
seeing how these things work.
<hhalpin> together
IJ: I liked Kimberly's comment.
EG: Manu's comment about less team involvement seems consistent as
well
hhalpin: One thing I'd like to discuss....strong emphasis about
taking grassroots efforts with energy and helping them with pat pol
and infrastructure.
<hhalpin> the idea is to clarify how to move from a lightweight
process to a more formal track.
<hhalpin> almost no-one seems to disagree there.
<hhalpin> it WOULD be useful.
<hhalpin> of course, moving to a more formal process needs to an
option.
<hhalpin> that some groups may not need to take.
<hhalpin> or want to even.
IJ: I am hearing some people say that if we get the lightweight
thing right, we may not need the heavier weight thing. What do you
see as the value of the classical track?
EG: It's important to remember that there are multiple communities,
who want different things (and different degrees of formality)
<hhalpin> +1
EG: there wil be people want nothing to do with W3C, but there are
other communities who will be happy if we have something to offer.
+1
<hhalpin> It seems to me the main reason for the heavy-weight track
is the legal agreements and the fact that it can work in very
politically fraught technological spaces.
<hhalpin> but I'm not a lawyer, would like to hear what larry has to
say...
IJ: Who values what aspects of the classical track?
lrosen: I can't imagine Linux being developed by a lightweight
mechanism...it's too big to be done in someone's garage.
... what I understand is that there are some things that may be just
between a few companies, or just a few developers, or it's new and
not yet provent, or maybe a couple of anarchists who want to do
something out of the ordinary...that's what the lightweight process
is for.
... but for _more meaningful agreement_ you move to a more formal
process....a different way of doing business.
Eduardo: it would be a good exercise to separate answers/comments to
know where they came from.
... for example, if someone says "zero-fee is important, but I would
never participate in W3C' the other answers may not be that
relevant.
hhalpin: we need to figure out why other groups using the XG
process.
... or how to transform it into a new lightweight process (requiring
an in-depth evaluation, comparision to other similar processes)
... what W3C needs to communicate is how the process evolved...
... one characterization I've heard about w3c process is that it's
good when things go wrong.
... even if not crafted today for small communities that get along
and are working closely
lrosen: I've seen mature products come to apache and be required to
go through the incubator process.
... it's not that the mechanism of the project is wrong, it's that
they need to learn how apache works.
... those projects are likely to get promoted to top-level projects
since there are mature communities that go with them, but there's a
learning curve.
IJ: Reasking Arnaud - what is the value and to whom of the second
track?
Arnaud: On larry's comment -we are trying to make it easier for
people to come to w3c..larry's comment suggests a bit the opposite
--- forcing people to go through incubator group
<hhalpin> agree with Arnaud, but Incubator should be an option.
IJ: Another way to view live is "everything starts as a community
process" that is, as an XG.
<hhalpin> some things are already mature, thus the "Public
Submission" idea
Arnaud: To Ian's question "what's the value add of the classic
process," I think the answer involves (1) IPR (2) Rigor
<hhalpin> i.e. the community may already exist and have draft specs
etc., and so could want to go straight to a heavier-weight process
due to its value add, IP, maturity, etc.
Arnaud: The rigor can be painful at times, but that's the value.
... it is an open question whether people will move from casual
track to more formal one...hard to know.
larry: I think Arnaud has it exactly right - I didn't mean to imply
that graduating from incubator to top level project is a function of
how they learn about us. There is a checklist (e.g., related to
licenses, etc.).
... there's a maturity level that needs to be met in order to fit
in.
... they need to certify to the rest of the community that they've
met certain maturity standards to qualify them as fitting in and to
satisfying the customers.
<lrosen> i've never heard anyone in Apache say "I'd rather stay in
the Incubator"!
<hhalpin> I think the value add is mostly in RF status....
<lrosen> I've heard lots of people say, "This project ought not to
graduate to a top level project"!
IJ: I am hearing people say "we are implementing anyway; don't need
your formal track for more rigor"
EG: In OASIS, one pattern was to get to "committee specification"
then get implementation experience, then some time later, bring it
for public review, redo it, and then go for OASIS standard.
... that almost never happened
... In many cases, people went straight for the heavyweight process.
lrosen: I'm not sure why you are so shy, IJ about the value
proposition of the classic track. I expect you'll have more in
incubator status and a smaller number in classic track.
... I could see graduating to the formal track additional efforts
like: monthly reports, more promotion by W3C, more serious outreach
to the industry
... I don't think the problem is "no value perceived in the classic
track" it's that there may not be a need for major value in an
incubator project until it earns it.
<lrosen> By the way, Apache also has an "Attic".
Arnaud: Are we missing the main point here? We are worried that we
are making it easier to start in incubator land and stay there, but
that may not be the right question to look at. Remember, the premise
was that we want to increase the chance that people bring more work
to W3C. I don't think that opening up an incubator activity still
increases the chance that more will come to w3c and then move to the
rec track.
... so I don't think we will be making things worse. We do need to
be careful about not diluting the value associated with labels for
specs.
<dom> [but who monitors the monitor? :) ]
Arnaud: the other thing is that ad-hoc groups all claim that they
are not doing standards....they get together and start working on
specs (e.g,. under OWF agreement) and they don't claim that they are
doing standards, and they say "eventually we will submit it to ietf
or w3c" but we haven't seen it happen yet.
... making it easier for them to do the ad-hoc work in w3c increases
the chances.
hhalpin: I think that the RF patent policy is a big value of the
classic track.
How to start turning ideas into proposals?
[15]Ideas and Proposals
[15] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Newstd#Ideas_and_proposals
IJ: Larry, would you be able to sketch a series of steps among 2
tiers.
EG: I've discussed with Ian idea of a time-limited patent
commitment.
Larry: Need to be able to distinguish "contribution" from
"participation"
... right...might be a distinction useful between incubator and
classic status
lrosen: I want discussion (participation, contribution) to take
place on the OWF list. :)
... if there are reasons why companies may not to agree to OWFa
... if there are questions about application of OWFa to W3C, that
discussion should happen here (or in PSIG)
IJ: Another bit to consider - starting with non-assert first, then
license.
lrosen: We are doing that in OWF...non assert for field of use...to
implement those parts of the spec whose function is defined in
detail (not merely referenced)
EG: I don't really agree with the hierarchical approach you seem to
be suggesting ... between non-assert and license. It's not clear
that it's easier to get a non-assert than a license.
lrosen: OWF lets you issue a RF license if you prefer.
<Arnaud> Ian, I have to admit to be surprised we are spending so
much time on this
<Arnaud> was this on the agenda?
part of agenda 2
lrosen: What I think ought to be done, is that W3C ought to rethink
its patent policy.
... if we come up with an incubator policy that looks something like
OWFa...then graduating to the w3c patent policy would be a slight
step backwards.
... it almost causes the PSIG and W3C to say to itself, is it time
to broaden our policy.
<scribe> ACTION: Larry will write down thoughts on what lightweight
commitments for incubator might look like and then what it would
mean to graduate to w3c rec track (and relation to those
commitments) [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2010/07/12-newstd-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Larry
Liaison improvements
Arnaud: My first impression based on my own view of the process and
people's responses to my overview is that "there doesn't seem to be
much to gain to streamline the current process."
... I would venture that it's probably best to leave it alone...but
would be happy to hear from the group on that.
IJ: +1 to priority on incubator design
... I think worth looking at both "operational improvements" and
"some process tweaks"
Arnaud: +1 to looking at those somewhat, but those aren't the main
goal.
Next meeting
IJ: I will take to the list.
slides for the AB presentation
IJ: Feedback very welcome.
EG: I'll take another look.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Larry will write down thoughts on what lightweight
commitments for incubator might look like and then what it would
mean to graduate to w3c rec track (and relation to those
commitments) [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2010/07/12-newstd-minutes.html#action01]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version 1.135
([19]CVS log)
$Date: 2010/07/13 02:54:09 $
[18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2010 03:00:12 UTC