Re: IG charter: modification suggestion - Scope & Decision

On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:21:41 +0900, Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org> wrote:

>   On 10/5/2010 6:45 AM, 이현재 wrote:
>
> ...
>> Lastly, about the decision, Is everybody fine with this entity will  
>> decide nothing? Just pass topic to others to handle our web and tv?
>> I strongly suggest this specific web and tv decision entity must be  
>> centralized single entity. If IG cannot do this, maybe steering  
>> committee or whatever should be formed to do the role. If decision is  
>> distributed, this work may as well not be formulated.
>
> I would tend to agree, and think the vehicle for this is the potential  
> "Web and TV" WG we discussed in Tokyo (not a steering committee). I also  
> remember in Tokyo we said that the IG would look into chartering such a  
> WG.

My understanding of what the IG should do is:

- Identify which existing WGs work on topics that are relevant to the TV
industry, and make sure that members of the TV industry join these WGs, so
that our needs are taken into account, and that the documents produced by
these WGs fulfill our requirements.

- When no existing work group is appropriate for a topic that is
identified by the web+TV IG as important for the TV industry, then (and
only then), create a new WG to work on that topic.

- Verify that WGs (both previously existing ones, and WGs spawned by the
IG) working on the topics we care about are indeed producing
specifications that address our problems, and when they don't, send them
back to work.

If we want to extend the video element for example, I doubt that doing so
out of the HTML WG, which is already working on it, would be fruitful. We
would have to work without the expertise of the people who made the video
element in the first place, risk duplicating effort when they are trying
to solve the same problem problem as we are, or even risk that they design
their own extensions to it that are incompatible with what we would want
it to do.

If there are web+TV topics that deserve w3c standardization and which fall
out of the scope of all existing WG, then yes, by all means, this IG
should create WGs to work on them. But I think a large proportion of the
things we discussed during the workshop actually are in the scope of
existing WGs.

So, to answer HyeonJae's remark, I don't see this IG as "deciding
nothing". I see it as deciding what are the topics that the w3c as a whole
must work on, for the sake of the web and TV convergence, and make sure
that this work happens.

As for "passing to others", this isn't also what I am hoping for. WGs
working on topics relevant to the TV should not be "others". The TV
industry needs to have representatives in all these WG, involved in
actually working on these specifications, together with all the other
relevant parties for the topic at hand.

    - Florian

Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 12:23:51 UTC