RE: IG charter: status and schedule

Hello,

Great work Charles with writing the charter. If I may I would like to propose an improvement to the scope. The terms web and TV are used in a special context which can be taken out of context. As stated in the workshop, is it web on TV or TV on web. A TV could be any kind of terminal and TV might emply a specific category of terminal. Based on some of the discussions at workshop I suggest that one of the initial scopes is to identify the main use cases related to "web on TV". Proposed rewording of first bullet:

- Identify the important use cases to be worked on by the "web on TV" IG.

I am missing a bullet to evaluate the alternatives for the use cases. The 2nd bullet jumps directly to the different W3C groups. After evaluation one can go into the different W3C groups or external groups. How about rephrasing to:

- Evaluate the alternatives for the support of the use cases. From the conclusion of the evaluations involve the W3C groups or other standard forums.

Rewording of 3rd bullet:

- Determine limitations of the use cases with existing terminals and identify potential solutions.

Rewroding of 4th bullet:

- Exchange information with other standard forums which may have worked on similar use cases.


Hope this helps provide some clarity to the scope.

Best Regards,
JanL 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Giuseppe Pascale
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:26 PM
> To: FUNAHASHI Yosuke; Charles McCathieNevile
> Cc: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
> Subject: Re: IG charter: status and schedule
> 
> I fully agree with Charles point.
> 
> When it comes to the charter, from my side I don't have any 
> additional comment.
> When it comes to do some preliminary work, we should try to 
> start from the outcome of the workshop and identify the main 
> discussion areas (of course more can be added).
> Maybe we could have a telco in a week or 2 to discuss how we 
> want to proceed.
> 
> cheers,
> /g
> 
> 
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:02:00 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile  
> <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Giuseppe Pascale
> Linux Devices SDK
> Opera Software - Sweden
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 15:43:14 UTC