Re: IG charter: modification suggestion

Hi Kaz,

Thank you for your kind instruction and help.:)

I think we had better prepare for many scenarios, so we should  
document the process on early stage whether we can imagine a concrete  
need for them or not.

Do you have any example or template for the document?

Regards,
Yosuke


On 2010/09/30, at 4:20, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:

> 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 Thursday, 30 September 2010 00:56:14 UTC