Re: IG charter: status and schedule

Hi Charles, Hi Kaz,

> On 2010/09/24, at 4:15, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

>> On 2010/09/23, at 2:02, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:01:13 -0400, FUNAHASHI Yosuke
>
>>>> I would like to ask Kaz about the minimum duration of the process
>>>> the W3C process document requires.  I think it would be the best
>>>> case we can expect.
>>>
>>> I think that it can be done in 4 weeks - and could be done  
>>> alongside the review by this group to speed up the process. If the  
>>> proposed charter is submitted next week it can still be modified  
>>> as a result of comments either by the AC or by this group.
>>
>> I agree with you that we should speed-up all the activities that  
>> constitute the whole process from creating the charter to  
>> finalizing it.  Time is always against us and everything has its  
>> time.  As I talked to Giuseppe in this ML yesterday, my review and  
>> modification for your initial draft charter will finish this week.  
>> So If anybody on the ML has no objection to submit the modified  
>> draft charter, things will be able to proceed a little bit quickly  
>> as you mentioned.
>>
>> Umm... because this is my first time to join a discussion on W3C  
>> mailing list, I can't tell what extent I can rely on the so-called  
>> "implication in sentences".  So I would like to write my response a  
>> little bit more directly.
>>
>> If you mean that my modification itself should be done after the  
>> initial draft charter proposed, I am sorry to say that it is not  
>> acceptable for me from the viewpoint of creating successful  
>> Interest Group.
>
> No, I don't mean that. I agree with your reasons for wanting to get  
> it right enough that we start from something people will not  
> misunderstand, and expect to incorporate your feedback on Monday so  
> we can present it to W3M formally on Wednesday.

I agree with you if Kaz (our W3C team contact) is sure that he (or we)  
can manage the concurrent review process successfully.


>> For example, in the workshop, the meaning of the some of the  
>> important technical, business and social science's terms had  
>> significant differences according to which industry the person is  
>> mainly working.  That prevented the discussions to be more  
>> fruitful.  Some discussions were bounded by it in unbearably naive  
>> level.  In my opinion, unveiling and showing this issue - the issue  
>> that resides in communication or discussion about "Web on TV" or  
>> "Web and TV" among multiple industries - to the participants is one  
>> of the important achievement of the workshop.  We had better learn  
>> from the workshop.
>>
>> I think one of the good methodology for successfully managing this  
>> kind of situation is 1) to build our minimum dictionary or  
>> terminology specialized for our discussion, 2) to reach the  
>> agreement upon it, 3) to write and read requirements based on it.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I think that this issue will continue to be a problem. Having an  
> international group, where most people are working in a language  
> other than their native one, will add to the difficulty. But there  
> isn't a very good solution to that.
>
> Rather than making a dictionary as a first step and then assuming we  
> agree on it, I think in an interest group it needs to be an ongoing  
> process. If we have volunteers to edit a specific document of some  
> kind, I think it should be a general "overview of issues and  
> concepts" - which needs to be agreed and presumably needs to have a  
> glossary of terms we use.
>
> From experience in W3C, we will find different people understand  
> terms differently, but making a dictionary won't automatically solve  
> that. People need to be engaged in a discussion and make an effort  
> to understand others and to explain themselves in ways others  
> understand. In large part this comes with working together - we get  
> better at it as we work on actual issues, and we also understand  
> better what the important concepts are by working through issues.

I think your suggestion is better than my original idea if we can  
realize it.  Actually, I would like to realize it.

I suppose we need a little rule or discipline regarding the  
discussions on the IG in order for participants to carry their  
attention to the ongoing process cooperatively.  I think we should  
explicitly show them the rule before they participate.  I do not know  
whether the charter is appropriate or not as the place where we write  
down such matters.

What do you think?


Regards,
Yosuke


> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:05:03 -0400, FUNAHASHI Yosuke <yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp 
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Charles,
>>
>> Thank you for your active involvement!
>
> And thank you for your continued prompt response time.
>
>> On 2010/09/23, at 2:02, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:01:13 -0400, FUNAHASHI Yosuke
>
>>>> I would like to ask Kaz about the minimum duration of the process
>>>> the W3C process document requires.  I think it would be the best
>>>> case we can expect.
>>>
>>> I think that it can be done in 4 weeks - and could be done  
>>> alongside the review by this group to speed up the process. If the  
>>> proposed charter is submitted next week it can still be modified  
>>> as a result of comments either by the AC or by this group.
>>
>> I agree with you that we should speed-up all the activities that  
>> constitute the whole process from creating the charter to  
>> finalizing it.  Time is always against us and everything has its  
>> time.  As I talked to Giuseppe in this ML yesterday, my review and  
>> modification for your initial draft charter will finish this week.  
>> So If anybody on the ML has no objection to submit the modified  
>> draft charter, things will be able to proceed a little bit quickly  
>> as you mentioned.
>>
>> Umm... because this is my first time to join a discussion on W3C  
>> mailing list, I can't tell what extent I can rely on the so-called  
>> "implication in sentences".  So I would like to write my response a  
>> little bit more directly.
>>
>> If you mean that my modification itself should be done after the  
>> initial draft charter proposed, I am sorry to say that it is not  
>> acceptable for me from the viewpoint of creating successful  
>> Interest Group.
>
> No, I don't mean that. I agree with your reasons for wanting to get  
> it right enough that we start from something people will not  
> misunderstand, and expect to incorporate your feedback on Monday so  
> we can present it to W3M formally on Wednesday.
>
> ...
>
>> For example, in the workshop, the meaning of the some of the  
>> important technical, business and social science's terms had  
>> significant differences according to which industry the person is  
>> mainly working.  That prevented the discussions to be more  
>> fruitful.  Some discussions were bounded by it in unbearably naive  
>> level.  In my opinion, unveiling and showing this issue - the issue  
>> that resides in communication or discussion about "Web on TV" or  
>> "Web and TV" among multiple industries - to the participants is one  
>> of the important achievement of the workshop.  We had better learn  
>> from the workshop.
>>
>> I think one of the good methodology for successfully managing this  
>> kind of situation is 1) to build our minimum dictionary or  
>> terminology specialized for our discussion, 2) to reach the  
>> agreement upon it, 3) to write and read requirements based on it.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I think that this issue will continue to be a problem. Having an  
> international group, where most people are working in a language  
> other than their native one, will add to the difficulty. But there  
> isn't a very good solution to that.
>
> Rather than making a dictionary as a first step and then assuming we  
> agree on it, I think in an interest group it needs to be an ongoing  
> process. If we have volunteers to edit a specific document of some  
> kind, I think it should be a general "overview of issues and  
> concepts" - which needs to be agreed and presumably needs to have a  
> glossary of terms we use.
>
> From experience in W3C, we will find different people understand  
> terms differently, but making a dictionary won't automatically solve  
> that. People need to be engaged in a discussion and make an effort  
> to understand others and to explain themselves in ways others  
> understand. In large part this comes with working together - we get  
> better at it as we work on actual issues, and we also understand  
> better what the important concepts are by working through issues.
>
> 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 17:34:54 UTC