Re: First pass at use cases for "new standards" task force

On 22 Jun 2010, at 3:34 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:

> Hi Ian,
> Does Rubberstamp/FastTrack encompass submissions by non members or  
> is that a different use case?

I'm adding that question to the wiki.

For some time we have identified process inputs and outputs as follows:

Inputs:
    * Member Submissions
    * Incubator Group Reports (since 2005 about 50% have moved to the  
Rec track)
    * Workshops (often suggestions for new charters)
    * Team Submissions (infrequent these days)

Outputs are typically Recs, Notes, and things in-between.

In fact, a few weeks ago I created a diagram with some of these on it:
  http://www.w3.org/2010/05/incubation.png

I am beginning to think about document paths (e.g., "to  
Recommendation" is one path) and that some paths may not involve a  
Working Group. It looks like several use cases may be candidates for  
"no Working Group" (e.g., revise an existing standard, take a de facto  
spec to standard, etc.).

One way to address these "no WG" cases would be to "create" a new  
track with some sort of review process.

I am looking at IETF processes since they have an "experimental" path:
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2.1

And the publications process for those:
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2.3

> I'm not sure but it might be worth listing it separately and  
> recognize that these use cases aren't mutually exclusive but can in  
> fact be combined.

There's a meta note at the top of the page that mentions combining;  
hope that suffices.

  _ Ian




> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Program Director, Global Open Standards, IBM Open  
> Source & Standards Policy
>
>
>
>
> From:        Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
> To:        Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
> Cc:        Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, "public-vision- 
> newstd@w3.org" <public-vision-newstd@w3.org>
> Date:        06/21/2010 12:54 PM
> Subject:        Re: First pass at use cases for "new standards" task  
> force
> Sent by:        public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org
>
>
>
>
> On 21 Jun 2010, at 1:59 PM, Michael Champion wrote:
>
> > +1 to [FastTrack] ...
>
> I have merged FastTrack and Rubberstamp. I like FastTrack as a title
> better. The difference seemed mostly to be "was at one time in W3C"
>
> >
> > I'm not sure if [Competition] is a use case or just a possible
> > attribute of any of the use cases.
> >
> > Likewise, isn't [Ontology] just one of the types of outputs that
> > could come out of any of the use cases?  People might want to
> > develop a web standard ontology, develop one that competes with a
> > W3C standard, brainstorm about a possible new ontology, create a
> > profile of an existing ontology, rubberstamp or fast track a de
> > facto standard one ...
>
> The key to this use case is that the ontology is vertical; I've added
> "vertical" to the wiki. In that sense, it's closest to Profile.
>
> To your point, though: This is an attempt to write down things we've
> heard. If it's possible to boil the list down to 3 (with some being
> variants, etc.) then they may tell us directly which three processes
> we need.
>
>  - Ian
>
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org [mailto:public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org
> > ] On Behalf Of Harry Halpin
> > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 11:49 AM
> > To: public-vision-newstd@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: First pass at use cases for "new standards" task force
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I've written down seven use cases [1]:
> >>
> >>                  * [Core] Develop a new Web standard
> >>                  * [Ontology] Develop an industry-specific ontology
> >>                  * [Competition] Develop a competing specification
> >>                  * [Brainstorm] Experiment (new format or  
> extension)
> >>                  * [Profile] Create a profile of one or more  
> specifications
> >>                  * [Sunset] Revise a W3C Recommendation without a  
> Working Group
> >>                  * [Rubberstamp] Reset expectations between W3C  
> Recommendation and de
> >> facto standard
> >>
> >> I welcome your comments on the list. What's missing? Are there any
> >> you
> >> think should be "out of scope" for this task force?
> >
> > Overall, great starting work Ian!
> >
> > I think one of the one's that we need to add is:
> >
> > [FastTrack] Fast-track an already existing de-facto standard to
> > being a W3C Recommendation
> >
> > Some group of people or organization have produced a specification
> > (possibly with or without a degree of legal protection) that has
> > become widely deployed within the industry. However, they would like
> > their standard to become a W3C Recommendation, possibly because but
> > not necessarily because they would like to be even more well-known
> > and have stronger IPR, would like to see integration with other
> > communities and standards. They strongly feel they do not want to
> > start with scratch. One requirement may be working with a large
> > group of people not normally affiliated with the W3C or familiar
> > with W3C Process, and having more than one organization managing the
> > standards.
> >
> > Example: Some of the work in the Social Web space could follow this
> > trajectory, as does HTML5.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Feel free to go in and edit the wiki (and if you can't get write
> >> access, please let me know).
> >>
> >>  _ Ian
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Use_Cases
> >> --
> >> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> >> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>

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

Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 20:56:54 UTC