- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:30:45 +0200
- To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org, "FUNAHASHI Yosuke" <yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp>
Hi Funahashi-san On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:57:35 +0200, FUNAHASHI Yosuke <yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp> wrote: > I have reviewed the initial draft charter and wrote out my > modification suggstion. > > I modified the inital draft charter directly, for my concern lie > mainly with improving the expression itself in order not to be > misunderstood by people in various industries, especially TV > industries or broadcasters. Thank you, in general I think the modifications are a good idea > I have also merged or reflected ongoing comments and discussions on > the ML in my modified version of the charter. I know some of them > require additional discussions. So I just tried to suggest balanced > solutions to them. There are a couple of points I think should be further discussed. Teleconferences: The big problem with these is that there is no time of day which doesn't mean someone is asked to be awake when their body is asleep. While occasionally they can be useful, making them regular and assuming that participation depends on attending teleconferences, rather than active participation in mailing list discussions, can lead to low participation and problems of remaining relevant. If people are expected to attend the teleconference to be counted as a participant, we waste a lot of time deciding who is going to be asleep when the teleconference takes place. In general, whoever it is becomes disadvantaged by being asleep, sometimes to the point where they are unable to justify the expense of attending, so they stop. Bit by bit others decide that the teleconference is not so useful without active participation from everyone, so they stop too. This is a process I have observed repeatedly in many standards groups, over a couple of decades. In addition, it is not sensible to assume that decisions can be made by the people at teleconferences. Many people are busy from time to time (e.g. meeting customers, urgent technical work, business requirements, etc) and cannot attend all teleconferences. It makes no sense to assume that these people should be shut out of expressing their opinion on a proposal. Finally, holding a regular teleconference without a clear agenda being prepared and distributed well in advance, and without sticking carefully to the agenda (to enable people to miss a teleconference if they really don't care about a particular agenda), is simply pointless. But preparing and chairing such meetings is a large amount of work. Given the uncertainty about the outcome, I don't think we should bind ourselves to this work pattern over two or three years. All that said, it may be that the way to achieve particular goals is to hold a series of teleconferences, so we should have them listed on an as-needed basis. In particular, dealing with a particular set of deliverables might be best done through a couple of teleconferences. 2. Deliverables: The modifications suggest that only a particular set of items from the Workshop are considered as priorities. I think there are two problems with this approach: The first is the manner of selection. While one workshop presented a certain set of issues, and then slected the ones that the participants thought were important, both the representation in the workshop and the selection process were biased. The understanding we had was that there would be at least a second workshop in Europe, and probably one in the Americas, and we expect different workshops to identify different priorities (and even different work items). This is not a negative reflection on the workshop, but a consequence of the process that the workshop was part of. Second, while the TV industry doesn't always move fast, it can do so, and the Web industry does so. We should be prepared to consider that things which seem important now might not be so important in late 2011, and that things which don't seem important now might become important by then. For both these reasons, while I agree that we should begin the work with the concrete tasks as described in your modifications, I think it is important to leave the Interest Group with the ability to take on new tasks or re-prioritise existing tasks - most especially in light of the workshop planned for Q1 2011 in Europe. > I have not touched the section on `Decision Policy', because I did not > follow the discussion yet. I would like to comment it on the ML later. 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 Tuesday, 28 September 2010 13:53:07 UTC