Re: Finalizing Second Screen Presentation WG draft charter

Francois,

Thank you for the explanation, that addresses my question and concern.

Mark


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
>
> On 2014-06-16 22:39, mark a. foltz wrote:
>
>> LGTM with one question that came to mind.
>>
>> The proposed update reads:
>>
>> "Upon approval of the Working Group, the Community Group will cease its
>> work on the Presentation API specification. It is expected that the
>> Community Group will recharter to work on other related deliverables
>> where it is not clear enough how to proceed for it to be a work item for
>> a Working Group. The Working Group and Community Group will never work
>> on the same deliverable. The Community Group is only one possible source
>> for work under future WG Charters, but can serve to do initial
>> exploration for some future work items."
>>
>> When it comes to a proposed change that is related to Web second sceen
>> efforts, would there first be a discussion as to whether it falls in
>> scope of the Presentation API WG (presumably as defined by the charter),
>> and then it will be routed to the WG or CG for further consideration?
>>   Is there a process for this?
>>
>> It seems like some issues like privacy, user experience, and content
>> handling will come up in both contexts and I am wondering how we
>> maintain consistency and cross-communication across both groups.
>>
>
> I cannot think of a process that specifies how a CG and WG are to work
> together (or how liaisons are to work in practice for that matter). The CG
> process does not say much about co-existence of a CG and a WG in
> particular, except to recommend that a CG "no longer develop the same
> material in parallel" (quoting from "Parallel Activities between a
> Community Group and a Working Group" section in
> http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/ ).
>
> The CG process is lightweight: CGs can choose to work on whatever they
> want, even if the topic is in scope for a WG (and can also easily change
> their mind). The sentence "The Working Group and Community Group will never
> work on the same deliverable" is too strong in that regard. A WG charter
> cannot restrict a CG. I'll drop it.
>
> In the case of the Second Screen Presentation CG and WG, the key is to
> ensure that there is a good overlap between the participants of the WG and
> the participants of the CG. There should not be any need for something more
> formal to maintain consistency and cross-communication across both groups.
>
> There hasn't been so many transitions from a CG to WG up until now (CGs
> are still a "relatively new" thing at W3C). One example is WebVTT handled
> by the Web Media Text Tracks Community Group to the Timed Text WG. The CG
> continues to explore new features. The new charter of the Timed Text WG
> merely mentions the CG in the list of liaisons:
> [[
> Web Media Text Tracks Community Group
>   This group developed the first Community report for the WebVTT format
> and will continue to explore new features.
> ]]
> http://www.w3.org/2014/03/timed-text-charter.html
>
> I'm not aware of any problem related to the existence of the CG and the WG
> in the WebVTT case.
>
> It's actually a very good idea to add the Second Screen Presentation
> Community Group to the list of liaisons in the draft charter. The liaison
> is only implicit for the time being. I'll adjust the pull request
> accordingly.
>
> Thanks,
> Francois.
>



-- 
http://wiki/Main/OnlyCheckEmailTwiceADay