W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Problems I'd like to see addressed in Process 2016 -> CG Affiliated with WG

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:02:39 -0700
Message-ID: <5537FE5F.2020409@linux.intel.com>
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>

On 2015-04-21 20:40, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
> *Incubation*: The current process says nothing about Community Groups, 
> which started as an experiment in 2011 and have become popular ways to 
> get the right set of people involved in designing a spec with the bare 
> minimum of process and IPR policy overhead.  The Process Document 
> should acknowledge the existence of CGs, encourage open incubation of 
> specs in CGs rather than assuming the process begins with a charter 
> and blank specification, and describe specific ways a successful CG 
> can contribute a spec that is in scope for a WG to jump-start 
> standardization.
> ·I'd like to see the Process Doc somehow (I don't have language to 
> propose yet) encourage WGs to start with a concrete spec rather than a 
> sense that a spec is needed. Likewise,  I'd like to see an explicit CG 
> Contribution mechanism that parallels the (seldom used anymore?) 
> Member Contribution mechanism to let a CG formally ask W3C to find a 
> WG home for its spec
> · I'd like to see some criteria specified to allow / encourage a WG 
> can take a CG spec (presumably a mature one with a Final Specification 
> Agreement indicating a reasonable amount of support and IPR 
> commitments) and publish it quickly as a Candidate Recommendation.
> · Picking up on a suggestion others have made (Sam and Wayne, IIRC) 
> there should be some way for a WG and one or more CGs to align with 
> each other, so that the CG scope is a subset of the WG scope  and 
> there is explicit coordination among groups.  This would  make it 
> easier for WG members to join the CG) , would help keep inter-related 
> specs in sync, and would allow the WG to "adopt" the output of a CG 
> once there is consensus it is ready for standardization.

I've been working on a charter template that a Working Group could 
choose to use in creating an Affiliated Community Group[1].  Key 
features are:

  *   the Community Group can quickly add new specs to work on (without
    rechartering the Community Group);
  * the scope and deliverables can be broader than the Working Group
    Charter to allow exploration of new ideas;
  * the Working Group controls whether (and when) the Community Group
    works on actual deliverables from the Working Group Charter.

Required Community Group patent licensing is for one's own 
Contributions, not the whole spec (unlike Working Groups where it is the 
entirety of all the specs being worked on).  That makes Community Groups 
more appropriate for exploring new areas that could expand scope or 

Most of the Charter template, the process rules, are identical with the 
optional Community Group Charter template[2].  The only difference in 
that section is the Working Group writes the Community Group Charter.

[1] https://wcarr.github.io/cg-charter/AffiliatedCGCharter.html -- 
suggested CG Affiliated wit h WG Charter Template
[2] https://www.w3.org/community/council/wiki/Templates/CG_Charter -- 
optional Charter template from the W3C CG website, not meant for 
Affiliated CGs

A Community Group affiliated with a Working Group could work on projects 
at its own initiative or could work on projects requested by the Working 
Group.  In this Charter template, once a Working Group adds a 
deliverable to its Charter, it controls whether the Community Group 
continues to work on it or what parts of it.  So, for instance, the 
Community Group could work on extension specs that at some point the 
Working Group decides to take into its Charter and the Community Group 
then stops work (unless the Working Group asks it to work on 
something).  Or a Working Group could more flexibly assign particular 
problems from a spec it is working on to the Community Group, e.g. some 
part of the spec has proved problematic and the WG would like the CG to 
experiment with a range of possible approaches.

Community Groups on their own do not have fairness rules.  The idea 
generally seems to be if you don't like the way a Community Group is 
run, you can fork it.  That isn't a practical option when the CG is 
officially Affiliated with a WG, so some fairness process rules are 
needed and the Charter Template (the content from the W3C CG Template) 
provide that.
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2015 20:03:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:28 UTC