Re: IG charter: modification suggestion

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:08:10 +0200, FUNAHASHI Yosuke  
<yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp> wrote:

> Hi Charles,
...
> 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.

I think that to get good deliverables we are going to require conentrated  
commitment to do real work, which will probably come from the members   
most interested in each given item.

>  Why?  Because I am somewhat worried that low commitment of many people  
> for long term will not bring good deliverables (by itself).

Agree.

> 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.

As a principle about how to succeed, I agree that we need to work like  
this.

>  This is the reason why I suggested ML should be public but IG itself  
> should be restricted in my modified charter.

Yes. My reason for changing that back is to clarify the patent policy  
status. In practice, anyone who wants work to be done in a working group  
is also going to have to commit to that work, so the concentrated effort  
required in the IG to start that work will be part of that commitment.

>  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...)

Yes...


> 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 are quite right.

> 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 agree that the time ahs been (and is) necessary. When I said "this  
process is taking too much time", I meant that I do not believe we will be  
able to produce the first deliverables as soon as we ha hoped (before  
Christmas this year). Although if we manage to do so it would be good, and  
there is nothing in the charter that says we have to wait until the  
deadline.

> I would like to suggest topic list that we should discuss before the
> IG started in a few days.

Hmm. There is a bit of a bootstrapping problem - the IG needs to be able  
to decide its topics too, and if we decide too much before hand we start  
to limit what we can actually do, and therefore achieve.

>> 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. [...]
>> Second, while the TV industry doesn't always move fast, it can do so,
[...]
>> 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.

Obviously we need to consider what W3M will accept - because we need them  
to approve the charter before it will be reviewed...

But while they will make suggestions, and may tell us something is not a  
feasible topic to tackle, or that something (e.g. accessibility or i18n)  
is a required topic to cover, in general they look to workshops and the  
community to decide what matters. I think that their proposed list was  
merely a copy-and-paste from the results of the workshop, rather than  
forcing a particular direction. (And if we propose something else and they  
want to force a direction, we will find out soon enough :) ).

In other words, we are effectively bound by what they tell us we have to  
do, but we are expected to argue with them first and say what we think is  
important to do. Advice is advice. A direct statement that something must  
be or cannot be in the charter will be phrased as a very direct statement  
- we don't need to try and second-guess W3M or do things because we think  
it is what they will like. What they will like is ultimately a relevant  
and effective community producing relevant and effective standards...

cheers

-- 
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 21:28:02 UTC