Re: IG charter: modification suggestion

Oops.  Some typo fixing;

s/without insufficient/without sufficient/

Thanks,
Yosuke


On 2010/09/30, at 1:08, FUNAHASHI Yosuke wrote:

> Hi Charles,
>
>> Thank you, in general I think the modifications are a good idea
>
> Thank you for your kind understanding regarding care for TV related  
> industries.
>
>> 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.
>
> Now I understand your image regarding work style of the IG.  I think  
> your suggestion is based on your image and experience of the  
> possible commitment of participants in IGs, and I suppose your  
> suggestion is a practical approach for planning how to run the IG.
>
> At the same time, I am slightly anxious for us only to consider work  
> style at the very first.  We had better think three topics at once;  
> work style, deliverables (the other side of scope) and timeline.   
> These are firmly related each other.  I do not mean you are the  
> person who think only work style first.  Actually, you mentioned  
> deliverables simultaneously as below.  I would like only to clarify  
> the key point of discussion regarding this topic for all the members  
> in this ML.
>
> On that premise, I would like to express my opinion.  I think there  
> is at least one alternative approach for how to run the IG.  Short  
> term, high commitment and strong performance, so to speak.   Why?   
> Because I am somewhat worried that low commitment of many people for  
> long term will not bring good deliverables (by itself).  I think we  
> need some kind of layered structure in the organization of the IG.   
> One layer is public; low commitment, many people and somewhat long  
> term.  The other layer is restricted, high commitment, not so many  
> people and several short terms.  This is the reason why I suggested  
> ML should be public but IG itself should be restricted in my  
> modified charter.  Both layers have merits and demerits.  We can get  
> two merits if we add those two layers carefully. (We can also get  
> two demerits if...)
>
> Just in case: I do not mean this work style alone is superior to  
> your suggestion alone.  Which approach is appropriate for the IG  
> depends on the decision about deliverables and timeline.  The  
> balance among these three factors is important.  If the balance is  
> established, it does not matter for me which approach is adopted;  
> your approach, my approach or whatever approach.
>
> Just in case again:  You insisted repeatedly we should start soon.   
> But I think finishing early -- i.e. making good deliverables early  
> -- is more important.   I agree with you that starting soon is  
> important, because the end never comes if we do not start.  But I  
> would like to say that going wrong direction or starting without  
> insufficient equipments for success is much worse than doing  
> nothing.  You know, in such a situation, our effort will come to  
> nothing.  This is the very reason why I think we need a little more  
> time before the IG started.  I would like to suggest topic list that  
> we should discuss before the IG started in a few days.
>
>> 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.
>
> Honestly speaking, I just copy-and-pasted the W3M suggestion  
> regarding deliverables in my modified charter.  I have some opinion  
> about this topic as well.  Before discussing this topic, I would  
> like to ask you to what extent we should consider the importance of  
> W3M suggestions on the IG.  I felt it must have strong influence,  
> therefore I just copy-and-pasted.  Though I am a member of W3C now,  
> I am new to W3C.  And I guess the considerable number of  
> participants in this public ML are new to W3C too.  I appreciate you  
> if you clarify this point to promote discussion about this topic.
>
>
> Regards,
> Yosuke
>
>
>
> On 2010/09/28, at 22:30, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
>> 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 Wednesday, 29 September 2010 16:44:38 UTC