Re: IG charter - alpha 4

Hi Kaz,

Given that we need to freeze the charter this weekend, we need a lightweight process. My detailed comments are inlined below.

> On 18 May 2016, at 21:32, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 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 [5].

There were too many separate pull requests outstanding and it was necessary to generate a combined document to make progress as we have very little time left if we are to be rechartered by the Beijing meeting.

> 
> - 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.

I’ve explained these in my emails to the public list.

> 
> - There are three separate resources (on GitHub [6] and the W3C server [8, 10])
>   and discussions (on GitHub Issues [3], Pull Requests [4] and the IG public list [5])
>   as follows:
> 
>   1. discussion based on the GitHub version:
>      https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/thread.html#msg75 <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/thread.html#msg75>
> 
>   2. discussion based on the alpha 3 version:
>      https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/thread.html#msg76 <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/thread.html#msg76>
> 
>   3. discussion based on this alpha 4 version:
>      https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/thread.html#msg89 <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/thread.html#msg89>
> 
> So I think we should once merge all the changes (or part of the changes) in this
> alpha 4 version [7] back into the GitHub version [6] first, and then hold the further
> discussions at one specific place.

In principle, we could do so, but this would take a lot of time to manage and we don’t have a lot of time. Moreover, very few people were actively participating by providing pull requests or commenting on pull requests, so I think that the process wasn’t really involving the full set of participants in the IG.


> 
> 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].

This is the efficient option and the most transparent.

> 
> 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 <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016Apr/0068.html>
> [2] https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/charters <https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/charters>
> [3] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues <https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues>
> [4] https://github.com/w3c/wot/pulls <https://github.com/w3c/wot/pulls>
> [5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/thread.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/thread.html>
> [6] http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-ig-2016.html <http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-ig-2016.html>
> [7] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha4.html <https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha4.html>
> [8] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-diff.html <https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-diff.html>
> [9] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha3.html <https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha3.html>
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kazuyuki
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto: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 <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 <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 <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Auto, WoT, TV, MMI and Geo
> Tel: +81 3 3516 2504
> 

—
   Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>