Re: IG charter: modification suggestion

Hi Yosuke,

Theoretically, the chair (or co-Chairs) can form subgroups
(officially called "task forces" in the W3C Process document [1])
later, but a group should document the process it uses to create
task forces.  That's why I'm asking you all for your opinion about
having task forces :)

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#ReqsAllGroups

Thanks,

Kazuyuki


On 09/30/2010 04:02 AM, FUNAHASHI Yosuke wrote:
> Hi Kaz,
>
> Thank you for installing Charles's updated draft.
> I think it is quite good. Thank you, Charles.
>
>> 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?
>
> That is a good point. I think subgroups will bring many possibilities.
> As you slightly mentioned, their interest or stake forms complicated
> network sometimes beyond country/area, industries and technologies. So I
> expect there will be various kind of subgroups.
>
> Do you have any idea about the process or procedure for the approval of
> subgroups?
> Or you mean only predefined subgroups? (for example by country/area)
>
> Regards,
> Yosuke
>
>
> On 2010/09/30, at 2:32, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>

-- 
Kazuyuki Ashimura / W3C Multimodal & Voice Activity Lead
mailto: ashimura@w3.org
voice: +81.466.49.1170 / fax: +81.466.49.1171

Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 19:21:47 UTC