Re: IG charter: status and schedule

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:01:13 -0400, FUNAHASHI Yosuke  
<yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp> wrote:

> Actually, I would like to speed-up the process as well.:)
>
> The most time-consuming process will be `Review by AC Rep.'.

Well, that depends on how fast we do our own review of the charter - if we  
take 5 weeks we might be the slowest step ourselves.

> I've heard from Kaz that, theoretically, it can take infinite time
> if any of AC Reps continue to reject the charter.  So we gave
> the process a month as our target of effort.
>
> I would like to ask Kaz about the minimum duration of the process
> the W3C process document requires.  I think it would be the best
> case we can expect.

I think that it can be done in 4 weeks - and could be done alongside the  
review by this group to speed up the process. If the proposed charter is  
submitted next week it can still be modified as a result of comments  
either by the AC or by this group.

In any case the IG is designed to be fairly uncontroversial - it  
deliberately defers complex technical and design discussions, along with  
taking decisions where there isn't clear consensus, to a relevant working  
group. The IG is more of a place for collecting and recording the range of  
requirements and issues, to make sure that working groups aren't missing  
important information.

> As for the first half of my draft schedule, I think we had better discuss
> several topics about the organization of the IG in this period.
...
>   * the IG should be public or W3C members only?
>
> I remember that, in the workshop, someone said that "Interest Group
> could be public" but the other person said that "Interest Group also
> requires W3C membership to participate in it".

An interest group can be open to anyone - and indeed the charter proposal  
allows anyone to join the interest group. But any work to be done would  
happen in a working group (either new or existing). This way we can get  
the widest possible participation in devloping and explaining  
requirements, and technical work is done in the context of W3C's patent  
policy, working with experts in Web technology as well as TV industry.

Where appropriate, I think it is more effective to do work in an existing  
working group. E.g. rather than having a seperate group to define  
TV-oriented device APIs, it makes sense to take advantage of the expertise  
on defining device APIs for the Web that is in the DAP group. Naturally  
the group can also recommend the creation of a new working group for items  
that haven't so far been in the scope of W3C work.

There is a separate question about whether the work should take place in  
publi, or in a member-only group. For the Interest Group I think it is  
much more effective for discussions to be in public. In any case, this is  
important to make technical work more efficient.

> What do you think?
>
>> In any case I think we can start with some preliminary work even before  
>> the charter is finalized so that we are able to start immediately as  
>> the charter is ready.
>> What do you think?
>
> Yes.  I agree with you.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 17:02:47 UTC