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

On 23 Jun 2010, at 3:43 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:

Hi Dom,

Thanks for commenting. My notes below are not pushback on your sense  
of priorities; just trying to be more explicit about some intentions  
and other thoughts.


> Le lundi 21 juin 2010 à 12:57 -0500, Ian Jacobs a écrit :
>> I've written down seven use cases [1]:
>>
>> 	• [Core] Develop a new Web standard
>
> Do we really need to spend any effort on that one? It looks like we
> already have a process for dealing with this; also, the overlap with  
> the
> “Core” task force would be important.

I don't expect to spend much time on it, no.

>
>> • [Sunset] Revise a W3C Recommendation without a Working Group
>
> That also seems to be more of a “Core” Task force, than “*new*
> standards”.

I think I mentioned previously that these are other use cases that  
have come up in the context of these discussions. I'm putting  it here  
for the sake of "completion" although it may not be the primary focus  
of this task force. But if we can solve it with a lightweight process,  
so much the better.

>
>> 	• [Ontology] Develop an industry-specific ontology
>> 	• [Competition] Develop a competing specification
>> 	• [Experiment] Experiment (new format or extension)
>> 	• [Profile] Create a profile of one or more specifications
>
> That’s the four use cases I would focus on in priority; we have clear
> examples of where they would have been useful, and I can see benefits
> both for W3C and the community at large to have W3C be a place where
> that kind of work could happen.
>
>> 	• [ByPass] Reset expectations between W3C Recommendation and de
>> facto standard
>
> I'm not thrilled by that one, but it might be a useful thing to  
> include
> in our discussions; that said, I wouldn't assume that this would be  
> done
> necessarily under the “W3C Recommendation” name (which would dilute  
> its
> — relative — standing).

I think there might be two sub-cases here, in fact:

  * Get something to Rec without a WG
  * Get something to a final state that is not a REC (but that  
represents some community review process), without a WG.

I was thinking that the first sub-case looks just like "revise a w3c  
rec" except that there's no WG here.

The second sub-case suggests "some other track without a WG" and a  
number of the use cases might want that approach (Experiment, Profile).

Ian

>
> Dom
>
>> [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

Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 14:24:12 UTC