Re: IG charter: status and schedule

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:51:17 +0200, Masahito Kawamori  
<masahito.kawamori@ties.itu.int> wrote:

> Hi Charles, Hi Jan

Hi Kawamori-san,

> Just my two cents.

(I'd happily have paid more than that ;) ).

> <chaals@opera.com>wrote:
>> jan.lindquist@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>>  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.
>>>
>> That was deliberate. Evaluating the alternatives - selecting a solution  
>> and developing it - is something that should be done in a Working  
>> Group, not in the Interest Group.
>>
> This point about "selecting a solution and developing it - is something  
> that should be done in a Working Group, not in the Interest Group"
>
> and
>
>>  Rewording of 4th bullet:
>>>
>>> - Exchange information with other standard forums which may have  
>>> worked on similar use cases.
>>>
>>  Makes sense to me. I would add an explicit note to say that where  
>> there is consensus that existing work done in a different organisation
>> is the most appropriate solution, it should reference that work rather
>> than duplicate it.
>>
>>
>>
> this point about  " it should reference that work rather than duplicate  
> it",
> seem to conflict, if the 'it' refers to "IG", which I assume it does. How
> can an IG, whose charter does not include "selecting a solution and
> developing it" decide that a different organisation has 'the' most
> appropriate solution? Should not it be the work of other WGs? And the
> charter of this IG cannot mandate what other WGs do.

Ah. What I tried to express is the case where there is *one* solution to a  
problem that is available. Where there is a requirement to look at two or  
more competing proposals the best way to avoid reinventing the wheel  
should be passed to the relevant Working Group.

> Though this point expresses a sound principle, which many SDOs refer to  
> by the metaphoric phrase "not reinventing the wheel", it should be up to  
> the
> other WGs to decide, not this IG, if the previous principle - "selecting  
> a solution and developing it - is something that should be done in a  
> Working Group, not in the Interest Group"- is valid.

Indeed, this group cannot mandate what another working group does (except  
in the case where it prepares the charter). But it can identify what  
*needs* to be done - which means if another W3C working group simply  
ignores the requirement, then W3C process effectively allows to force an  
examination by the director of why those needs were ignored (and if  
necessary have work returned to working draft to solve the problem,  
although tehre are various other possible outcomes that may be chosen as  
more suitable).

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 Monday, 27 September 2010 08:20:43 UTC