- From: <Andrew.Updegrove@gesmer.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:19:15 -0400
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: public-vision-newstd@w3.org, public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF80E0B39D.27BF147A-ON8525775F.00632D99-8525775F.00649987@gesmer.com>
I'm sorry that I couldn't attend the call, but I have read the minutes and
the rest of the email that's been going back and forth. In doing so, a
list of sanity check questions occurred to me that might be worth keeping
in mind and checking in with from time to time:
1. How many groups form in any given year that we would like to think of
W3C? (If the funnel starts out being too narrow, this effort may not be
worthwhile)
2. Of those, what percentage do we think we could be visible enough to do
be considered? (and how would we recommend we go about getting visible
enough)
3. Of those, how many would be likely to consider the lightest set of
rules that W3C would feel comfortable hosting? If the rules are too loose,
we may not want to be associated with the work; if the rules are too tight,
will the target audience be large enough to justify the effort?
4. Of those, how many might want to step up to the normal process? (And
do we care?)
I don't know how educated a set of answers we could come up with, but from
the standpoint of making a recommendation on whether it was worthwhile for
W3C to pursue this (e.g., allocate resources and have the result look like
a success rather than a failure) it would certainly be nice to be able to
make an educated guess.
With respect to some of the most recent email (and on a related note), I
suspect that the effort of getting a new IPR policy approved, even for a
discrete purpose like this, might be enough to get the project vetoed out
of hand (recall that it took three years of biweekly calls to do the last
policy). A good compromise would be recommend that only two choices should
be open to a group that wants W3C to host it: the existing W3C Patent
Policy (which would make a transition to the full process less complicated)
or another already existing policy (like the one from OWF, which would
avoid a lengthy reinvention of the wheel).
Andy
public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org wrote on 07/12/2010 11:00:10 PM:
> 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
>
>
>
See the new Gesmer.com http://www.gesmer.com
_____________________________________________________________
Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein
(including any attachments) is not intended to be and
cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding
tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. (The
foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S.
Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)<br><br>
Electronic mail from Gesmer Updegrove LLP, 40 Broad
Street, Boston, MA 02109. Voice: (617) 350-6800, Fax:
(617) 350-6878. This communication is intended only for
the use of the individual or entity named as the
addressee. It may contain information which is privileged
and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not
the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or
agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify Christopher O'Sullivan at
(617) 350-6800 and notify the sender by electronic mail.
Please expunge this communication without making any
copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2010 18:18:46 UTC