Re: IG charter: status and schedule

Hi Chaals

Thank you for your reply and explanation. I see your points. Maybe we
can word the charter to clearly express your points.

By the way, I noticed something about the text of the draft charter.
In the "External Groups" clause, ITU-T is put under "TV Industry". ITU
(International Telecommunication Union) is a UN agency for
Telecommunication; it is not in TV Industry.
It should be put under "Telecommunication".

I also notice that there are not many broadcast-related organizations
listed here. Since there have already been some (regional)
organizations that already have some web-related standards for
broadcasting, I think it would be better to include them.

Organizations relevant to broadcasting are:

ARIB (with its BML)
ATSC (with its ACAP-X)
DVB (with its DVB-HTML)

We also need to include
CEA

for that is the source of CEA-2014, sometimes referred to as CE-HTML.

Thanks again

Kawamori



On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Charles McCathieNevile
<chaals@opera.com> wrote:
> 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 lĉrer norsk
> http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 16:54:51 UTC