Re: IG charter - alpha 4

What do we need to say as further clarification?  The IG charter can’t define what the WG should do.

> On 24 May 2016, at 09:02, Soumya Kanti Datta <Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr> wrote:
> 
> +1 on this concern.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Soumya
> Research Engineer, EURECOM, France | +33658194342 | @skdatta2010 | 
> https://sites.google.com/site/skdunfolded <https://sites.google.com/site/skdunfolded> | Skype id: soumyakantidatta
> On 24-05-2016 07:44, 전종홍 wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>> 
>> I’d like ask a question to clarify the scope of test activity. 
>> 
>> Regarding on IG’s draft charter, there was defined "one of important activity is the operation of Plugfests to test interoperability”.
>> And also WG side, in the figure, there was defined that WoT WG’s activity is “write specs & write test suites”.
>> 
>> Why it separated into WG’s Test suites and IG’s PlugFest activity ? 
>> 
>> I think we need to make clear what is different between WG’s test activity and IG’s test activity. 
>> 
>> Best Regards, 
>> 
>> — Jonathan Jeon  
>>>  
>>> From: Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>] 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:40 AM
>>> To: Public Web of Things IG
>>> Cc: J. Alan Bird
>>> Subject: IG charter - alpha 4
>>>  
>>> 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 <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 < <mailto:dsr@w3.org>dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
>> 
> 

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