- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:42:52 -0500
- To: public-vision-newstd@w3.org
Minutes online:
http://www.w3.org/2010/06/28-newstd-minutes.html
Text below.
[NEW] ACTION: Arnaud will write down a few ideas on simplification of
process and operations (to start by fleshing out comments on this call)
[NEW] ACTION: DanA to write up some notes on what he thinks are
important for liaisons
(Feel free to write directly in the wiki; if you can't, then let me
know.)
Next meeting likely 12 July at 11:30 ET.
- Ian
=========
Making W3C the place for new standards task force
28 Jun 2010
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vision-newstd/2010Jun/0072.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/28-newstd-irc
Attendees
IanJ (Chair), Arnaud, Eran, Larry, DanA, Michael
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Legal agreements [pre-agenda discussion]
2. [6]use cases
3. [7]outreach
4. [8]strawman proposals
5. [9]next meeting
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Legal agreements [pre-agenda discussion]
lrosen: we are working on this at OWA...looking for lightweight
commitments, both for patent and copyright
... there are some difficult agreements wrt patent grants
[discussion of owf agreement development process]
use cases
[11]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Use_Cases
[11] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Use_Cases
* 1 [Core] Develop a new Web standard
* 2 [Sunset] Revise a W3C Recommendation
* 3 [Vocabulary] Develop an industry-specific (vertical) vocabulary
* 4 [Profile] Create a profile of one or more specifications
* 5 [Competition] Develop a competing specification
* 6 [Experiment] Experiment on a specification, test suite, etc.
with low start-up costs and ability to work indefinitely
* 7 [Reinvent] Another body is developing a specification that could
reuse a W3C Recommendation
* 8 [Promote] Promote an informal standard through some
formalization process
IJ: Is this complete? Who wants to take a pass at editorial
revision?
dka: One thing that may be missing - coordination with other groups.
see:
[12]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Newstd#Ideas_an
d_proposals
[12] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Newstd#Ideas_and_proposals
dka: I am interested in the liaison part.
[13]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Newstd#Goals_fo
r_a_Proposal_from_this_Task_Force
[13] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Newstd#Goals_for_a_Proposal_from_this_Task_Force
[14]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Newstd#Ideas_an
d_proposals
[14] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Newstd#Ideas_and_proposals
<dka> gah
IJ: Yes, liaisons are important but not listed in use
cases...questions of discovery, scalability, role of staff
<dka> my phone crashed...
dka: I would have concerns about a model where "w3c does something
an periodically checks in with another group."
IJ: What would you like to see?
dka: I don't have a concrete suggestion. But when I've seen liaisons
operate, I haven't seen them be terribly effective.
lrosen: One thing that Apache does --- they define this as a
mentoring relationship.
... they assume that people bringing work to apache may not yet
understand how to find answers, why things are done in a particular
way, etc.
... mentoring role may be more helpful than liaising
EHL: Collaboration is valuable, but at least at this point in time,
the examples aren't that interesting.
... if you look at some of the venues that were mentioned...OWF
doesn't have standards activities...it's focused on process of
creating work
... but doesn't have any work going on
... openid foundation is struggling right now...they need to figure
things out before they talk to others.
... the open efforts done outside W3C, there aren't many left.
... for the most part, the trend from 2 years ago has died off.
... mostly right now we are seeing proposals from a small number of
companies to specify some sort of interop
... in those cases, they don't like to have (too open) a process
since they have products to ship.
... we've seen tension between those needs and community needs to
keep an open process.
... our focus should be long-term...the _next_ person who wants to
start a community-based effort should come to w3c and see if it's a
suitable place for them.
Elements of a Successful Standard Community
[15]http://hueniverse.com/2009/12/elements-of-a-successful-standard-
community/
[15] http://hueniverse.com/2009/12/elements-of-a-successful-standard-community/
IJ: So what are big considerations?
EHL: Participation model was the number 1 concern in my case (e.g.,
oauth)
... I looked at IETF, OASIS, W3C, and keeping it open outside a
standards body and my conclusion wrt oauth was that people who were
part of original work could continue to be part of the work.
... I also acknowledge that the IETF IPR process was lacking.
... I've learned to live with that.
... I also had issues with the complexity of the IETF process,
particularly to newcomers.
... but we've lowered some of those barriers.
... W3C and OASIS ruled themselves out immediately.
IJ: Do you have a gut sense that a two-part model (incubator -> std)
model with heavier-weight commitments at transition?
EHL: My impression is that the revenue model has to be decoupled
from the product
<dka> +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
<lrosen> +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
scribe: you've failed if revenue model controls the process in any
way
EHL: If the lightweight thing succeeds, nobody will go to the heavy
thing, and if it fails, it doesn't matter.
dka: I was going to say the same thing as Eran....I feel like we
shouldn't talk about revenue models in this task force
... We need to decouple the process from the money question.
lrosen: I wanted to compliment Eran on what he said --- put his
finger on a key piece of this.
... membership model of w3c puts them out of the running for some
work.
... I think the "pay to play" model puts a burden on the development
of certain work.
... maybe we need to move the IP commitments to contributors to
standards....you may be able to get enough money from sponsor
members who are willing to pay for the free work being done by the
standard-setting people.
Mike: I do think that we need to focus on creating a model where
W3C, broadly defined, is a more attractive venue. And if successful,
worry about monetizing it.
... on the priorities of the use cases: a lightweight process that
can attract a larger community to pre-standards brainstorming is the
highest priority.
[Barriers:
[16]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Perceived_Barri
ers]
[16] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Perceived_Barriers
IJ: Do you agree that the lightweight thing can moot the heavier
weight thing?
MS: No; companies such as mine care more about patent policies and
participation models.
... process and IPR policy starts to matter to the larger
businesses.
... likewise, when you talk about governments.
... there are govt procurement policies that care very much about
whether something is "really a standard" or some informal agreement.
<EHL> +q
MS: successful lightweight specs will create a demand for
heavier-weight standardization.
EHL: I want to clarify: the stds process is valuable...but the
question is whether it will be attractive for some kinds of
participants will want to continue there.
... some will want to move on to other (cooler, newer) work.
... in some cases, even big companies may be reluctant to carry
something into a standards process.
... so I completely agree about the importance of standardization,
but it's a huge struggle to get from lighter to heavier.
IJ: Given social realities - innovation world (cool new light
ongoing) -> effort to move from standards....how do you cater to
both?
Arnaud: IBM participates in open source projects...we pay engineers
to work in projects where others participate at no cost...we see the
bigger picture and see something to gain from the investment.
... and I think that standards work is similar...we would probably
keep supporting the work (financially) if we think that there's a
benefit to us...even if others participating at no cost.
... and you could have granularity at different levels, e.g.,
participation in a WG could be free, but there might be other
benefits at other levels (e.g., Member approval to start work)
... so I don't have a problem with opening up participation in WGs.
... I am a bit concerned with Eran's comment that "W3C and OASIS
ruled themselves out"
... W3C has been generous in granting IE status.
... especially people with a history of people who've been involved
with work.
... is this a perception issue?
EHL: I think it's a practical matter.
... when I did the review, it looked as though there were 30-40
people in the oauth community...of them, about 8-9 were working for
a W3C Member.
... so that would have meant a long list of Inv Experts....and one
that we would have wanted to grow indefinitely.
IJ: Do you think individual participant category _has_ to be free?
EHL: likely has to be zero cost
... it's a principle more than the small amount of money.
... I am contributing, why should I have to pay?
<dka> I agree - individual membership needs to be free. I also agree
the invited expert mechanism is opaque.
EHL: I want to decouple the value of an organization from
participation model.
lrosen: My experience recently has been with apache...we've
decoupled membership from contributor base.
... anyone can be a contributor (though people get status within an
organization and their rights go up with their status)
... that's distinct from the membership, which is responsible for
ensuring that there's a board of directors that does their thing,
and ensuring IPR policy exists, and there's PR, and so on.
... +1 to decoupling the financial support from the membership
model.
<lrosen> Use case most important: Wide participation by non-members
in a WG
Proposed: That lightweight process seems top priority.
[dka has to go]
Arnaud: On lightweight process..I think that there are some things
in the current process that we should revisit.
... we added some bits of process on purpose at one point or another
... typically related to quality
... there may be a tradeoff, maybe we don't want to enforce some of
them in some cases
... but there may also be ways in which people execute the process.
... everyone wants things to move quickly, but consensus-building
adds weight
... different WGs have tried to approach this in different ways
<EHL> +q
Arnaud: so there's flexibility in how you carry out the process.
lrosen: what was heavy? other than the heavy lifting that comes from
doing technology, what was heavy?
Arnaud: last call, test suites, creating "disposition of comments"
... you have to answer comments
... you explain the disposition of comments to the Director
... it's heavy but it's there for a reason.
EHL: process can be simpler but standards can rarely be faster
... people have to realize that ... it's hard for newcomers to
appreciate.
... standards take time (1-3 years)...you don't know if you'll even
need it in 2 years
lrosen: the adoption of the standard has probably started to take
place long before the formal process has completed.
... the one that I've been focused on is: at some point companies
have to make an IP commitment
<EHL> most standards *require* implementation as part of the process
lrosen: so it becomes important to be able to point to the stable
thing
... let the std live...I'd rather have heavy-duty on software QA end
dka: one thing I was going to talk about is IPR
-> [17]http://www.w3.org/2010/03/outposts-proposal-snapshot.html
Outposts proposal
[17] http://www.w3.org/2010/03/outposts-proposal-snapshot.html
dka: need IPR policy for incubator-type work
... in may cases, these experimental standards are being developed
in concert with open source implementations
... there ought to be a way to link those within an experimental
process
... we should link the OS development and the standards
<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to talk about conversation
IJ: Comment on larry's idea of lighter weight standards process and
shifting burden to software?
dka: I agree that standards-making is hard. I don't think we need a
lighterweight process for the standards part a W3C....it's one of
the values of W3C
... i would simply augment it with connections to OS development
IJ will add "dev outreach to the wiki"
scribe: backporting implementation experience
<EHL> +q
IJ: One issue that has been raised related to implementation - RF
commitments not backed until REC.
... Some bits of process aren't going through the process completely
(IETF or W3C)
EHL: Indeed, in the IETF, some specs are published, but then not
carried through the process....
... in some cases, people just lose interest...don't care what some
other body (e.g., IESG or TAG)..."we're done"
... because IETF and W3C have these sanity checks, you are adding a
layer of complexity that most people don't want to deal with...I
don't want to get rid of it, but the question is how do you get
people to go through it (e.g., simplify? pay somebody to carry it
through?)
lrosen: I think that IETF has it mostly right, but for the IPR
policy
... there are peer review mechanisms that are alright
... IPR uncertainty at the end of the process
... W3C can add some regularity to this...figure out how to make an
IPR policy (not necessarily changing the patent policy)
... licensing policies and commitment levels, when contributors give
what....
Arnaud: what about reconciling the two models? The reason the IPR
policy today is tied to Rec is that companies are willing to commit
IPR to things people agree to.
... I'm not willing to commit to any and everything.
outreach
<Arnaud> was the call scheduled for 1h 1/2?
IJ: Anybody want to call any potential customers to learn more about
their needs?
[Silence]
<dka> I think I am doing this already, Ian...
larry: I can forward survey to the apache list
[18]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/newstd2/?login
[18] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/newstd2/?login
I'm going to send survey to XG chairs tomorrow
Feel free to send comments before then
IJ will also be drafting and email that larry and others can use to
talk to other orgs
strawman proposals
<scribe> ACTION: DanA to write up some notes on what he thinks are
important for liaisons [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/28-newstd-minutes.html#action01]
IJ: areas of study:
- IPR staircase
- quality / accountability/ burden balance
- document license if you have incubator then rec track
[20]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Newstd#Ideas_an
d_proposals
[20] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Newstd#Ideas_and_proposals
[21]http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Track_Compariso
n
[21] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Track_Comparison
lrosen: I'm not volunteering to do an action, but someone from W3C
should join the OWF discussion list
[22]http://openwebfoundation.org/legal/
[22] http://openwebfoundation.org/legal/
<scribe> ACTION: Arnaud will write down a few ideas on
simplification of process and operations (to start by fleshing out
comments on this call) [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/28-newstd-minutes.html#action02]
lrosen: can Eran say more about what works for him at the IETF?
EHL: I no longer share Larry's concern for the IPR issues.
... I'm not aware of significant issues due to the lack of tighter
IPR policies at the IETF.
... in one case, community decided it was better to pay royalties
than to abandon the technology.
... so I've not seen the problem materialize in the IETF.
... they other part of the IETF...I took the time to work that
system and I'm productive in it.
... several people held my hand through the process.
... I am now comfortable, and like to help other people figure it
out now.
next meeting
<dka> time good
Likely 12 July, same starting time
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Arnaud will write down a few ideas on simplification
of process and operations (to start by fleshing out comments on this
call) [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/28-newstd-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: DanA to write up some notes on what he thinks are
important for liaisons [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/28-newstd-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [26]scribe.perl version 1.135
([27]CVS log)
$Date: 2010/06/28 17:40:50 $
[26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[27] 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 Monday, 28 June 2010 17:42:55 UTC