Re: IG charter: modification suggestion

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:32:07 +0200, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>  
wrote:

> - Point1. Usual Meeting Schedule

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

Notice that this *allows* the chairs to identify particular work items and  
move them along relatively fast with teleconferences and decisions.

> 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.

Grouping by broadcast standard or country (which is similar in effect)  
risks breaking a lot of the discussion into groups who agree among  
themselves arguing through representatives against representatives of  
other groups, without enough communication between individuals to overcome  
the differences. Given the different standards we have for doing the same  
things, one of our big problems is going to be overcoming entrenched  
positions on particular technologies. This is delicate and complicated  
negotiation, and in my experience pushing groups to entrench their  
positions internally and then negotiate through representatives will  
actually make it more difficult to achieve the consensus that we need.

I think it is important to be able to hold a discussion in a particular  
language. Ideally I would like to see such discussions follow the  
decision-making policy I proposed for the group as a whole - if there are  
disagreements, each proposal has to be presented, in english.

This allows for explorations of different topics, and clear discussions  
where people who are happier in their own langauge feel comfortable that  
they can express themselves accurately, but by keeping them open to the  
entire group and ensuring that all relevant information is forwarded to  
the entire group allows us to share information and ideas as widely as  
possible.

We should modify the charter to be explicit about how to hold meetings in  
different languages (and what the requirements are - that the results are  
forwarded in english to the group). The fact that a teleconference has to  
take place in some time zone (and a face-to-face meeting in some real  
place) already provides a tool that helps determine who it is primarily  
directed at.

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 21:27:29 UTC