Re: IG charter: modification suggestion

Hi Yosuke,

Sorry for the delay.  I've been preparing for another workshop
on W3C EmotionML and not very active during the weekend (I'm in
Paris, btw.)

It's just that the process document says we SHOULD clarify the
procedure, but in practice it's OK for us to make decision later
:)


Thanks,

Kazuyuki


On 10/04/2010 09:29 AM, FUNAHASHI Yosuke wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>

-- 
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 11:38:53 UTC