Re: IG charter: modification suggestion

Hi Yosuke, Charles and all,

Thanks a lot for your thoughtful comments, Yosuke!
And thank you very much for your updating the draft charter, Charles!

I think there are the following two points here:
- Point1. Usual Meeting Schedule
- Point2. Deliverables

I'd add my brief comments to each point below.

Please see also Charles' updated Charter at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/webTVIGcharter.html

BTW, Charles was worried about newly introduced typos in the updated
draft, but I just found the following four typos when I checked the
document using the W3C Spell Checker :)

- s/stakeholer/stakeholder/
- s/categorisation/categorization/
- s/exhuastive/exhaustive/
- s/public-web-tv@w3.org/public-web-and-tv@w3.org/g


Point1: "Usual Meeting Schedule" and (maybe related to) "4. Participation"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd agree Charles' following proposal:
- Teleconferences: Teleconferences may be held as required
- Face-to-face: As required up to 3 per year

BTW, I was wondering if it would make sense the IG has several
subgroups/task forces for each country/area of broadcasting
system/standard, e.g., Japan, Europe, North/South America, because I
think broadcasting technology basically has several existing (and
competing) standards, and also each country/area has many broadcasters
who have their own opinions.  For example, there are seven (and more)
broadcasters from Japan as we saw in the Web on TV Workshop in Tokyo.

Probably it should be useful for the IG's work if each subgroup could
have detailed discussion (f2f, telephone or email) regularly using
their mother tongue, and bring their conclusion to the main group as
official proposal from that country/area.

What do you think?


Point2: "2. Deliverables"
--------------------------

I like Charles' wording and would agree to his proposal here again.


Thanks,

Kazuyuki


On 09/30/2010 01:43 AM, FUNAHASHI Yosuke wrote:
> Oops.  Some typo fixing;
>
> s/without insufficient/without sufficient/
>
> Thanks,
> Yosuke
>
>
> On 2010/09/30, at 1:08, FUNAHASHI Yosuke wrote:
>
>> Hi Charles,
>>

Point1: Usual Meeting Schedule
-------------------------------
>>
>> On 09/28/2010 10:30 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>> Thank you, in general I think the modifications are a good idea
>>
>> Thank you for your kind understanding regarding care for TV related
>> industries.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

Point2: 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

Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 17:33:10 UTC