Re: Chartering work

On 9/2/2015 2:01 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 1. It's already defacto standard.
>> >2. Several interoperable implementations already exist and have majority market penetration.
>> >3. Several interoperable implementations already exist, although there are many incompatible solutions as well.
> 3.5 There's an implementation of 3.6
> 3.6 There's a proposed starting point (e.g., straw-man specification) for the work that can be referenced by the charter
> 3.7 The crisp technical problem has been segmented into specific deliverables and bounded by chartered requirements
>> >4. We agree on a crisp technical problem.
>> >5. We agree on a broad area of work which requires attention.
>> >
>> >I would be interested in where you would draw the line of starting a new Working Group.  My own intuition is that it would depend on a whole bunch of factors, and would be different for each WG.
> My experience is that 3.6-3.7 is the minimum bar for viability; if people can't be bothered to write a spec and agree upon it as a starting point, you've got a group of people interested in a problem, nothing more. Giving them a WG is a recipe for a disaster that many of us have lived through, several times.
> All I'm really asking for for Web Payments is 3.7, but it seems to be having trouble conforming to "broad" in 5,

I think that your criteria 3-5-3.7 are all very sensible and setting a 
target of 3.7 is desirable as well.  I like how you think about this.  
Clearly we are bootstrapping a new area of work for W3C, and probably 
the area where we disagree is what are the right steps to bootstrap the 
new work.  So keep after us and let's work together to continue to crisp 
up the work.

Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2015 11:19:34 UTC