- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:27:08 -0400
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
On 8/20/2015 8:06 PM, David Singer wrote: > Hi Harry > > I think we could improve the process, but I am not sure I agree with all the problems you cite. > >> On Aug 19, 2015, at 14:33 , Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: >> >> Currently, charters for new WGs are semi-shrouded in mystery. While the >> AC is notified when chartering begins, there is no way for the community >> itself to ask for a WG to be chartered without going through the W3C Staff. > Sure, one can present the idea and a draft charter to the community. What stops you? Exactly. > >> While sometimes this may be a good thing as the W3C staff successfully >> charters WG in the best interest of the Web, but in some domains the W3C >> staff is unqualified in terms of the modern Web (such as is often the >> case in security, such as the demand for the Credentials CG to be a WG >> [1]) > I actually don’t think it’s a good thing at all to assume we need staff expertise in every area the W3C is working on. In fact, most similar bodies explicitly don’t have technical staff. > >> or may have some other motivational structure for starting a new >> WG: For example, the current process allows W3C staff to run >> 'skunkworks' research projects as Working Groups and for WGs that >> industry and users are not interested in (or even against) to be >> chartered, but a small persistent group of hobbyists (that may include >> W3C staff) are pushing for. > That’s what AC review is supposed to be for. Exactly. > I agree, there is a small issue that we tend not to object (“I’ll let your group go ahead, and you’ll let mine”). > >> Currently we have set a higher-bar at AC voting - but would a new >> transparent process help? > Sure. I think that PLH set a good example recently of community drafting (good). We could also make sure that the charters have less boilerplate and bumf and are shorter and more to the point. +1 > >> I'm not sure of the details, but it seems with the amount of activity in >> CGs would provide empirical data, and there should be some objective >> threshold involving commitment in terms of implementation and real users. > I am increasingly moving towards “we don’t charter a WG until we have enough of a draft to indicate a spec. is at least possible, and likely to emerge alive”. > >> I would like to see this issue taken up by the CG and AB. >> >> This ask by the Credentials CG to be a WG in this blog post [1] and >> their analysis [2] is a pretty good test-case. Without the W3C hat on, I >> see a good case for standardizing vocabularies around health care or >> education. I don't see much of a case here [3] for replicating the work >> of OAuth, JOSE, FIDO, and then layering a somewhat incorrect mental >> model of GPG with multi-origin key material (obviously a security and >> privacy concern) on the top of the Web just because it uses RDF. >> >> yours, >> harry >> >> [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__manu.sporny.org_2015_credentials-2Dvia-2Dw3c_&d=BQIFaQ&c=eEvniauFctOgLOKGJOplqw&r=lsCTiiScrfjO0gbgKpiPgw&m=PyU4KLaHb2tFwfVUS3mZd12xml260sQqx2GyenJRUHo&s=Blwq-ufrzuhCmDv3_4DJ01VAOTk9fXMM5HZpdNFK14g&e= >> [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__manu.sporny.org_2015_credentials-2Dretrospective_&d=BQIFaQ&c=eEvniauFctOgLOKGJOplqw&r=lsCTiiScrfjO0gbgKpiPgw&m=PyU4KLaHb2tFwfVUS3mZd12xml260sQqx2GyenJRUHo&s=v0WVL8Wc36EwGED5LBpQ2j6_LRL8ti3mx82jGi72fzY&e= >> [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__opencreds.org_specs_source_identity-2Dcredentials_&d=BQIFaQ&c=eEvniauFctOgLOKGJOplqw&r=lsCTiiScrfjO0gbgKpiPgw&m=PyU4KLaHb2tFwfVUS3mZd12xml260sQqx2GyenJRUHo&s=GV8d1CRw7zR_Zq2DxxZYvc8hHHgbFjjnWMnG3b0TlBs&e= >> >> >> >> > David Singer > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc. > >
Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 00:33:07 UTC