Re: IG charter: status and schedule

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:05:03 -0400, FUNAHASHI Yosuke  
<yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp> wrote:

> Hi Charles,
>
> Thank you for your active involvement!

And thank you for your continued prompt response time.

> On 2010/09/23, at 2:02, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:01:13 -0400, FUNAHASHI Yosuke

>>> 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.
>
> I agree with you that we should speed-up all the activities that  
> constitute the whole process from creating the charter to finalizing  
> it.  Time is always against us and everything has its time.  As I talked  
> to Giuseppe in this ML yesterday, my review and modification for your  
> initial draft charter will finish this week. So If anybody on the ML has  
> no objection to submit the modified draft charter, things will be able  
> to proceed a little bit quickly as you mentioned.
>
> Umm... because this is my first time to join a discussion on W3C mailing  
> list, I can't tell what extent I can rely on the so-called "implication  
> in sentences".  So I would like to write my response a little bit more  
> directly.
>
> If you mean that my modification itself should be done after the initial  
> draft charter proposed, I am sorry to say that it is not acceptable for  
> me from the viewpoint of creating successful Interest Group.

No, I don't mean that. I agree with your reasons for wanting to get it  
right enough that we start from something people will not misunderstand,  
and expect to incorporate your feedback on Monday so we can present it to  
W3M formally on Wednesday.

...

> For example, in the workshop, the meaning of the some of the important  
> technical, business and social science's terms had significant  
> differences according to which industry the person is mainly working.   
> That prevented the discussions to be more fruitful.  Some discussions  
> were bounded by it in unbearably naive level.  In my opinion, unveiling  
> and showing this issue - the issue that resides in communication or  
> discussion about "Web on TV" or "Web and TV" among multiple industries -  
> to the participants is one of the important achievement of the  
> workshop.  We had better learn from the workshop.
>
> I think one of the good methodology for successfully managing this kind  
> of situation is 1) to build our minimum dictionary or terminology  
> specialized for our discussion, 2) to reach the agreement upon it, 3) to  
> write and read requirements based on it.
>
> What do you think?

I think that this issue will continue to be a problem. Having an  
international group, where most people are working in a language other  
than their native one, will add to the difficulty. But there isn't a very  
good solution to that.

Rather than making a dictionary as a first step and then assuming we agree  
on it, I think in an interest group it needs to be an ongoing process. If  
we have volunteers to edit a specific document of some kind, I think it  
should be a general "overview of issues and concepts" - which needs to be  
agreed and presumably needs to have a glossary of terms we use.

 From experience in W3C, we will find different people understand terms  
differently, but making a dictionary won't automatically solve that.  
People need to be engaged in a discussion and make an effort to understand  
others and to explain themselves in ways others understand. In large part  
this comes with working together - we get better at it as we work on  
actual issues, and we also understand better what the important concepts  
are by working through issues.

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 Thursday, 23 September 2010 19:16:29 UTC