Re: Update on new standards proposal

I don't know whether the staff has experience with Drupal but that would 
be an obvious choice.
I've used it myself on a recent project and it's quite amazing how much 
you get with little installation and configuration work.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Program Director, Global Open Standards, IBM Open Source 
& Standards Policy




From:   "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org>
To:     Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:     public-vision-newstd@w3.org
Date:   10/14/2010 05:59 PM
Subject:        Re: Update on new standards proposal
Sent by:        public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org



> Hmm... So what you're saying is that I didn't miss anything and, while 
the
> proposal is approved, it isn't given any of the necessary resources to
> implement it. I can appreciate the problem of funding but that's not 
much
> of a victory then.
>
> Looking back at our proposal document I think we may have aimed a bit 
high
> though and it would probably be useful to draft the minimum 
infrastructure
> we would need to be able to launch this. (I'm not volunteering though,
> sorry. ;-)

I imagine a more basic portal would be possible without too work,
depending on if we can get Systems Team attention to do a off-the-shelf
open source forum software install. Or we could also just do another
list-serv and have someone monitor it.  Any idea for open-source forum
software?


> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Program Director, Global Open Standards, IBM Open 
Source
> & Standards Policy
>
>
>
>
> From:   Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
> To:     Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc:     public-vision-newstd@w3.org
> Date:   10/14/2010 04:14 PM
> Subject:        Re: Update on new standards proposal
> Sent by:        public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org
>
>
>
>
> On 14 Oct 2010, at 5:43 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>
>> Hello Ian,
>>
>> I'm glad the general idea was approved but I'm not sure I understand
>> what is going to be offered to facilitate the creation and work of
>> Community Group if no infrastructure is provided. I must be missing
>> something because practically speaking how would these groups then
>> come to life and function?
>
> Good question.
>
> I have made it clear to my colleagues that without a scalable system,
> this will be very hard to implement. One solution is for the systems
> team to drop other work in favor of this project. That's a possibility
> but requires further negotiation with the Head of Systems (which I've
> started).
>
> Another option (probably in combination with the first) is to seek
> external funding, like a sponsorship program.
>
> I welcome additional suggestions,
>
>   _ Ian
>
>
>>
>> Thanks.
>> --
>> Arnaud  Le Hors - Program Director, Global Open Standards, IBM Open
>> Source & Standards Policy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:        Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
>> To:        public-vision-newstd@w3.org
>> Date:        10/14/2010 03:28 PM
>> Subject:        Update on new standards proposal
>> Sent by:        public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I come bearing pretty good news!
>>
>> Here's an update on the new standards task force proposal [1]
>> following W3C's annual management meeting. The purpose of that meeting
>> was to prioritize and select from among the many proposals produced by
>> all five of the task forces created by the CEO (including this one).
>> Here are the results. I welcome your comments, questions, etc.
>>
>>  _ Ian
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community
>>
>> =============
>> On the proposal
>>
>> This proposal is *approved* ... in part. Congratulations to the task
>> force for a job well done. This is likely to have a big positive
>> effect on W3C.
>>
>> Pending discussion with the Advisory Committee the first week of
>> November, W3C will fund part of it and W3C will start to implement it.
>> That's going to mean:
>>
>>   - Hammering out the details of the proposal, probably with some
>> process document edits
>>   - Same with the IPR policy: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/newstdipr.html
>>
>> The parts that will *not* be funded with funds available today are:
>>
>>     - Infrastructure
>>       http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community#infrastructure
>>
>>     - Developer portal
>>       http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community#portal
>>
>> People liked these proposals a lot, but they liked others (of the 100
>> or so we started with) even more.
>>
>> I am likely to begin seeking additional funding for at least one of
>> these, because I think they are important to the success of the
>> program overall. Let me know if you'd like to talk more about that.
>>
>> ==============
>> On revenue ideas
>>
>> I have also been discussing the relationship between this proposal and
>> a related, revenue-bearing proposal for something we are calling
>> "business groups." The idea is this:
>>
>>    - If you want to create a group rapidly and need very little W3C
>> staff involvement, a community group is the way to go.
>>    - If you want extra benefits but no ongoing staff contact, then
>> Members can create a business group and non-Members can participate
>> for a fee that is a fraction of the regular W3C Membership dues. The
>> extra benefits (in the draft proposal) include some periodic
>> consulting from the W3C staff, and the opportunity to work in a forum
>> that is publicly readable but not writable.
>>    - If you want significant staff resource investment, then W3C
>> expects large organizations to support W3C through Membership dues,
>> whether their work will be on the standards track (Working Group) or
>> not (Interest Group).
>>
>> Thus, there will be some new options for participation (for new
>> audiences) with different price tags and sets of benefits. We are
>> still working those out but I wanted to let you know where we stand.
>> --
>> 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
>
>
>
>