Re: IG charter: modification suggestion

Hi Kaz, Charles,

Hum...  Probably, I misunderstood what Kaz told me.

I would like to be sure, please let me confirm my understanding, Kaz.

I thought you pointed out that we must write a document which defines  
the procedure to create task forces in our IG (before when we actually  
create task forces).  But in practice, such a document is not mandatory.

Right?

Regards,
Yosuke


On 2010/10/01, at 20:12, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:

> On 10/01/2010 01:16 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 02:55:23 +0200, FUNAHASHI Yosuke
>> <yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kaz,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your kind instruction and help.:)
>>>
>>> I think we had better prepare for many scenarios, so we should
>>> document the process on early stage whether we can imagine a  
>>> concrete
>>> need for them or not.
>>
>> I looked around for other groups that have created task forces, and  
>> not
>> found any documentation of how they did it even for Task Forces that
>> functions across working groups. From memory this is usually done by
>> making the task force take place within a single group, so they can  
>> just
>> create it. But I think we can do it without having to put anything in
>> the charter, so long as what the Task Force is doing doesn't exceed  
>> our
>> normal scope.
>
> Right.
>
> Kazuyuki
>
>
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Chaals
>>
>>> Do you have any example or template for the document?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Yosuke
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2010/09/30, at 4:20, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Yosuke,
>>>>
>>>> Theoretically, the chair (or co-Chairs) can form subgroups
>>>> (officially called "task forces" in the W3C Process document [1])
>>>> later, but a group should document the process it uses to create
>>>> task forces. That's why I'm asking you all for your opinion about
>>>> having task forces :)
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#ReqsAllGroups
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Kazuyuki
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09/30/2010 04:02 AM, FUNAHASHI Yosuke wrote:
>>>>> Hi Kaz,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for installing Charles's updated draft.
>>>>> I think it is quite good. Thank you, Charles.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Point1: "Usual Meeting Schedule" and (maybe related to) "4.
>>>>>> Participation"
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd agree Charles' following proposal:
>>>>>> - Teleconferences: Teleconferences may be held as required
>>>>>> - Face-to-face: As required up to 3 per year
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, I was wondering if it would make sense the IG has several
>>>>>> subgroups/task forces for each country/area of broadcasting
>>>>>> system/standard, e.g., Japan, Europe, North/South America,  
>>>>>> because I
>>>>>> think broadcasting technology basically has several existing (and
>>>>>> competing) standards, and also each country/area has many  
>>>>>> broadcasters
>>>>>> who have their own opinions. For example, there are seven (and  
>>>>>> more)
>>>>>> broadcasters from Japan as we saw in the Web on TV Workshop in  
>>>>>> Tokyo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably it should be useful for the IG's work if each subgroup  
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> have detailed discussion (f2f, telephone or email) regularly  
>>>>>> using
>>>>>> their mother tongue, and bring their conclusion to the main  
>>>>>> group as
>>>>>> official proposal from that country/area.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a good point. I think subgroups will bring many  
>>>>> possibilities.
>>>>> As you slightly mentioned, their interest or stake forms  
>>>>> complicated
>>>>> network sometimes beyond country/area, industries and  
>>>>> technologies.
>>>>> So I
>>>>> expect there will be various kind of subgroups.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have any idea about the process or procedure for the  
>>>>> approval of
>>>>> subgroups?
>>>>> Or you mean only predefined subgroups? (for example by country/ 
>>>>> area)
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Yosuke
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2010/09/30, at 2:32, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Yosuke, Charles and all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks a lot for your thoughtful comments, Yosuke!
>>>>>> And thank you very much for your updating the draft charter,  
>>>>>> Charles!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think there are the following two points here:
>>>>>> - Point1. Usual Meeting Schedule
>>>>>> - Point2. Deliverables
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd add my brief comments to each point below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please see also Charles' updated Charter at:
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/09/webTVIGcharter.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, Charles was worried about newly introduced typos in the  
>>>>>> updated
>>>>>> draft, but I just found the following four typos when I checked  
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> document using the W3C Spell Checker :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - s/stakeholer/stakeholder/
>>>>>> - s/categorisation/categorization/
>>>>>> - s/exhuastive/exhaustive/
>>>>>> - s/public-web-tv@w3.org/public-web-and-tv@w3.org/g
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Point1: "Usual Meeting Schedule" and (maybe related to) "4.
>>>>>> Participation"
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd agree Charles' following proposal:
>>>>>> - Teleconferences: Teleconferences may be held as required
>>>>>> - Face-to-face: As required up to 3 per year
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, I was wondering if it would make sense the IG has several
>>>>>> subgroups/task forces for each country/area of broadcasting
>>>>>> system/standard, e.g., Japan, Europe, North/South America,  
>>>>>> because I
>>>>>> think broadcasting technology basically has several existing (and
>>>>>> competing) standards, and also each country/area has many  
>>>>>> broadcasters
>>>>>> who have their own opinions. For example, there are seven (and  
>>>>>> more)
>>>>>> broadcasters from Japan as we saw in the Web on TV Workshop in  
>>>>>> Tokyo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably it should be useful for the IG's work if each subgroup  
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> have detailed discussion (f2f, telephone or email) regularly  
>>>>>> using
>>>>>> their mother tongue, and bring their conclusion to the main  
>>>>>> group as
>>>>>> official proposal from that country/area.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Point2: "2. Deliverables"
>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like Charles' wording and would agree to his proposal here  
>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kazuyuki
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/30/2010 01:43 AM, FUNAHASHI Yosuke wrote:
>>>>>>> Oops. Some typo fixing;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> s/without insufficient/without sufficient/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Yosuke
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2010/09/30, at 1:08, FUNAHASHI Yosuke wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Charles,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Point1: Usual Meeting Schedule
>>>>>> -------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 09/28/2010 10:30 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thank you, in general I think the modifications are a good  
>>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for your kind understanding regarding care for TV  
>>>>>>>> related
>>>>>>>> industries.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are a couple of points I think should be further  
>>>>>>>>> discussed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Teleconferences:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The big problem with these is that there is no time of day  
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean someone is asked to be awake when their body is
>>>>>>>>> asleep.
>>>>>>>>> While occasionally they can be useful, making them regular and
>>>>>>>>> assuming that participation depends on attending  
>>>>>>>>> teleconferences,
>>>>>>>>> rather than active participation in mailing list  
>>>>>>>>> discussions, can
>>>>>>>>> lead to low participation and problems of remaining relevant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If people are expected to attend the teleconference to be
>>>>>>>>> counted as
>>>>>>>>> a participant, we waste a lot of time deciding who is going  
>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>> asleep when the teleconference takes place. In general,  
>>>>>>>>> whoever
>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>> becomes disadvantaged by being asleep, sometimes to the  
>>>>>>>>> point where
>>>>>>>>> they are unable to justify the expense of attending, so they  
>>>>>>>>> stop.
>>>>>>>>> Bit by bit others decide that the teleconference is not so  
>>>>>>>>> useful
>>>>>>>>> without active participation from everyone, so they stop too.
>>>>>>>>> This is
>>>>>>>>> a process I have observed repeatedly in many standards groups,
>>>>>>>>> over a
>>>>>>>>> couple of decades.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In addition, it is not sensible to assume that decisions can  
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>> by the people at teleconferences. Many people are busy from  
>>>>>>>>> time to
>>>>>>>>> time (e.g. meeting customers, urgent technical work, business
>>>>>>>>> requirements, etc) and cannot attend all teleconferences. It
>>>>>>>>> makes no
>>>>>>>>> sense to assume that these people should be shut out of  
>>>>>>>>> expressing
>>>>>>>>> their opinion on a proposal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finally, holding a regular teleconference without a clear  
>>>>>>>>> agenda
>>>>>>>>> being prepared and distributed well in advance, and without
>>>>>>>>> sticking
>>>>>>>>> carefully to the agenda (to enable people to miss a
>>>>>>>>> teleconference if
>>>>>>>>> they really don't care about a particular agenda), is simply
>>>>>>>>> pointless. But preparing and chairing such meetings is a large
>>>>>>>>> amount
>>>>>>>>> of work. Given the uncertainty about the outcome, I don't  
>>>>>>>>> think we
>>>>>>>>> should bind ourselves to this work pattern over two or three  
>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All that said, it may be that the way to achieve particular
>>>>>>>>> goals is
>>>>>>>>> to hold a series of teleconferences, so we should have them
>>>>>>>>> listed on
>>>>>>>>> an as-needed basis. In particular, dealing with a particular  
>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>> deliverables might be best done through a couple of
>>>>>>>>> teleconferences.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now I understand your image regarding work style of the IG. I  
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> your suggestion is based on your image and experience of the
>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>> commitment of participants in IGs, and I suppose your  
>>>>>>>> suggestion
>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>> practical approach for planning how to run the IG.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At the same time, I am slightly anxious for us only to  
>>>>>>>> consider work
>>>>>>>> style at the very first. We had better think three topics at  
>>>>>>>> once;
>>>>>>>> work style, deliverables (the other side of scope) and  
>>>>>>>> timeline.
>>>>>>>> These
>>>>>>>> are firmly related each other. I do not mean you are the  
>>>>>>>> person who
>>>>>>>> think only work style first. Actually, you mentioned  
>>>>>>>> deliverables
>>>>>>>> simultaneously as below. I would like only to clarify the key
>>>>>>>> point of
>>>>>>>> discussion regarding this topic for all the members in this ML.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On that premise, I would like to express my opinion. I think
>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>> at least one alternative approach for how to run the IG.  
>>>>>>>> Short term,
>>>>>>>> high commitment and strong performance, so to speak. Why?  
>>>>>>>> Because
>>>>>>>> I am
>>>>>>>> somewhat worried that low commitment of many people for long  
>>>>>>>> term
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> not bring good deliverables (by itself). I think we need some
>>>>>>>> kind of
>>>>>>>> layered structure in the organization of the IG. One layer is
>>>>>>>> public;
>>>>>>>> low commitment, many people and somewhat long term. The other
>>>>>>>> layer is
>>>>>>>> restricted, high commitment, not so many people and several  
>>>>>>>> short
>>>>>>>> terms. This is the reason why I suggested ML should be public  
>>>>>>>> but IG
>>>>>>>> itself should be restricted in my modified charter. Both  
>>>>>>>> layers have
>>>>>>>> merits and demerits. We can get two merits if we add those two
>>>>>>>> layers
>>>>>>>> carefully. (We can also get two demerits if...)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just in case: I do not mean this work style alone is superior  
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> suggestion alone. Which approach is appropriate for the IG
>>>>>>>> depends on
>>>>>>>> the decision about deliverables and timeline. The balance among
>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>> three factors is important. If the balance is established, it
>>>>>>>> does not
>>>>>>>> matter for me which approach is adopted; your approach, my
>>>>>>>> approach or
>>>>>>>> whatever approach.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just in case again: You insisted repeatedly we should start  
>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> I think finishing early -- i.e. making good deliverables  
>>>>>>>> early -- is
>>>>>>>> more important. I agree with you that starting soon is  
>>>>>>>> important,
>>>>>>>> because the end never comes if we do not start. But I would  
>>>>>>>> like to
>>>>>>>> say that going wrong direction or starting without insufficient
>>>>>>>> equipments for success is much worse than doing nothing. You
>>>>>>>> know, in
>>>>>>>> such a situation, our effort will come to nothing. This is  
>>>>>>>> the very
>>>>>>>> reason why I think we need a little more time before the IG
>>>>>>>> started. I
>>>>>>>> would like to suggest topic list that we should discuss before
>>>>>>>> the IG
>>>>>>>> started in a few days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Point2: Deliverables
>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The modifications suggest that only a particular set of  
>>>>>>>>> items from
>>>>>>>>> the Workshop are considered as priorities. I think there are  
>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>> problems with this approach:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The first is the manner of selection. While one workshop
>>>>>>>>> presented a
>>>>>>>>> certain set of issues, and then slected the ones that the
>>>>>>>>> participants thought were important, both the representation  
>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>> workshop and the selection process were biased. The
>>>>>>>>> understanding we
>>>>>>>>> had was that there would be at least a second workshop in
>>>>>>>>> Europe, and
>>>>>>>>> probably one in the Americas, and we expect different  
>>>>>>>>> workshops to
>>>>>>>>> identify different priorities (and even different work  
>>>>>>>>> items). This
>>>>>>>>> is not a negative reflection on the workshop, but a  
>>>>>>>>> consequence of
>>>>>>>>> the process that the workshop was part of.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Second, while the TV industry doesn't always move fast, it can
>>>>>>>>> do so,
>>>>>>>>> and the Web industry does so. We should be prepared to  
>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> things which seem important now might not be so important in  
>>>>>>>>> late
>>>>>>>>> 2011, and that things which don't seem important now might  
>>>>>>>>> become
>>>>>>>>> important by then.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For both these reasons, while I agree that we should begin  
>>>>>>>>> the work
>>>>>>>>> with the concrete tasks as described in your modifications,  
>>>>>>>>> I think
>>>>>>>>> it is important to leave the Interest Group with the ability  
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>> on new tasks or re-prioritise existing tasks - most  
>>>>>>>>> especially in
>>>>>>>>> light of the workshop planned for Q1 2011 in Europe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Honestly speaking, I just copy-and-pasted the W3M suggestion
>>>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>>> deliverables in my modified charter. I have some opinion  
>>>>>>>> about this
>>>>>>>> topic as well. Before discussing this topic, I would like to  
>>>>>>>> ask you
>>>>>>>> to what extent we should consider the importance of W3M
>>>>>>>> suggestions on
>>>>>>>> the IG. I felt it must have strong influence, therefore I just
>>>>>>>> copy-and-pasted. Though I am a member of W3C now, I am new to
>>>>>>>> W3C. And
>>>>>>>> I guess the considerable number of participants in this  
>>>>>>>> public ML
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> new to W3C too. I appreciate you if you clarify this point to
>>>>>>>> promote
>>>>>>>> discussion about this topic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Yosuke
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Kazuyuki Ashimura / W3C Multimodal & Voice Activity Lead
>>>> mailto: ashimura@w3.org
>>>> voice: +81.466.49.1170 / fax: +81.466.49.1171
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Kazuyuki Ashimura / W3C Multimodal & Voice Activity Lead
> mailto: ashimura@w3.org
> voice: +81.466.49.1170 / fax: +81.466.49.1171
>

Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 00:31:13 UTC