W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > May 2016

Re: IG charter - alpha 4

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 05:32:45 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9VRFf-WP8whJRHST+W=zj_=JK32gKzBBfcFykjWr02ozg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Cc: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, "J. Alan Bird" <abird@w3.org>
Hi Dave,

Thanks for updating the draft IG Charter based on the discussion
during today's call.

However, I'm a bit concerned the current way we're dealing with
the draft IG Charter may be confusing to the IG participants
because of the following:

- The IG got a consensus about the procedure to update the draft IG
  Charter [1] the other day,  and there are already a GitHub repository [2],
  GitHub issues [3], Pull Requests [4] and email threads on the public list

- I've checked the diff between (1) the HTML version of the draft
  Charter on GitHub [6] and (2) your generated alpha4 draft [7], and
  there are so many differences as the diff version file [8] shows.

- There are three separate resources (on GitHub [6] and the W3C server [8,
  and discussions (on GitHub Issues [3], Pull Requests [4] and the IG
public list [5])
  as follows:

  1. discussion based on the GitHub version:


  2. discussion based on the alpha 3 version:


  3. discussion based on this alpha 4 version:


So I think we should once merge all the changes (or part of the changes) in
alpha 4 version [7] back into the GitHub version [6] first, and then hold
the further
discussions at one specific place.

For that purpose, maybe we need to discuss again what the procedure for the
IG Charter generation should be.

Possible options should include:

Opt 1: We continue to use the GitHub repository version [6] as the
       basis and hold discussions using GitHub Issues [3] and Pull
       Requests [4].

Opt 2: We rather use the alpha 4 version [7] as the basis and hold
       discussions on the IG public list [5].

Either option is fine by me but we need to make the group's consensus
again and follow the agreed procedure.

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016Apr/0068.html
[2] https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/charters
[3] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues
[4] https://github.com/w3c/wot/pulls
[5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/thread.html
[6] http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-ig-2016.html
[7] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha4.html
[8] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-diff.html
[9] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha3.html



On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:

> I am seeking a W3C Management Committee (W3M) member to review the draft
> charter, something that is a precondition for asking approval to start the
> Advisory Committee Review. I expect to announce the charter extension as
> part of the advanced notice for the work on the IG and WG charters. I plan
> to send this out on Monday morning.  We need to finalise the IG charter by
> the close of Friday, and I will ask W3M for approval for the AC Review at
> their next meeting on Wednesday, Jul 25.
> Following today’s call, I have generated the alpha 4 version of the draft
> IG charter, see:
>    http://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha4.html
> We’re still in need of dates for first IG notes for each of the
> deliverables.
> The changes are as follows:
> I’ve switched to the patent disclosure wording from the previous charter
> as the new charter template was designed primarily for WGs.
> Update the relationships figure to fix camel-casing of PlugFest, and
> corrected WG description to “write test suites” rather than “interop” since
> W3C WGs don’t normally work on interop testing. Instead, they are required
> to produce test suites and to collect implementation reports as a condition
> for moving from Candidate to Proposed Recommendation for their
> specifications. Note clicking/tapping on the figure gives you the full
> sized version which could be useful for people viewing the charter on
> mobile devices.
> The first paragraph for the scope section has been split and new text
> added to the resulting second paragraph to explain the work on semantic
> interoperability and end to end security across platforms using different
> standards. It is made clear that this work will combine implementation
> experience with in-depth analysis.
> The bullet points in the scope section have modified to clarify the
> distinction between supporting the Working Group in respect to satisfying
> the exit criteria for Candidate Recommendations, and the role of PlugFests
> for interoperability testing across implementations for ideas at different
> levels of maturity.
> I have added examples for further ideas for topics to the paragraph
> following the bullet points.
> In respect to the deliverables, I would note that without the deliverables
> for semantics and security, the W3C is unlikely to attract the
> participation of the companies that we need to make the Web of Things
> widely successful.  We need a compelling charter to bring in people from
> all scales of businesses, with the breadth of experience across different
> areas.  We need to become strategically compelling for businesses as they
> seek embrace the opportunity and disruption that the IoT will bring.  I
> recommend reading the Harvard Business Review article by Michael Porter and
> James HeppelMan "How Smart, Connected Products Are Transforming
> Competition”. See:
> https://hbr.org/2014/11/how-smart-connected-products-are-transforming-competition
> p.s. I am copying Alan Bird, W3C Business Development lead to allow him to
> confirm the importance of rising the to opportunity for the Web of Things.
> —
>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>

Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Auto, WoT, TV, MMI and Geo
Tel: +81 3 3516 2504
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2016 20:33:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:03 UTC