[Minutes] 12 July "new standards" task force meeting

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