Re: Friction and cross pollination

On Oct 14, 2011, at 20:31 , Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
> Michael Champion posted this to the public-html-xml mailing list, but it includes some suggestions directed to the TAG, so I'm relaying it here.
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Friction and cross pollination
> From: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
> 
> Editorializing a bit Š I think it's time to retire the pattern of the TAG
> causing the creation of Task Forces to dig deep into topics that interest
> them but they don't have the bandwidth to pursue.  Instead, those people
> in the TAG or Team or wider community who see an unmet need or envision a
> better solution should propose a community group, see if there is critical
> mass to explore the idea, and if the group comes up with a compelling
> solution THEN propose it to a WG to standardize.  That will reduce the
> number of as-yet unsolvable problems that get put into TF or WG charters
> while giving the people with the vision and determination to solve them
> anyway a place to do so (or not) unimpeded by the skeptics.

I'm a big fan of community groups, but I don' think that they are meant to replace TAG TFs. If there is momentum in the broader community to get a given topic in motion, then by all means that group should be left to self-organise, potentially with liaison from the TAG (in the form of having a TAG member simply join the CG) if it's relevant. But on some topics, that kind of self-organisation does not emerge, and in those situations I think that it makes a lot of sense for the TAG to create a TF. Reasons for this include (in no particular order):

    • The Web is big and it is difficult for any nine people to know enough of the nitty gritty details of all aspects to produce optimally informed output — asking for help on specific topics is therefore a strength and not a weakness, and IMHO should be encouraged.

    • Some key people are often more likely to accept to contribute if asked by the TAG than in a random CG. I'm pretty certain that some of the key participants in the TF wouldn't have joined a CG on the topic and only accepted because they were asked nicely by the right people.

    • Expectations and targets matter in setting the tone for work. I think that people are more likely to be primed with consensus-mindedness for TAG-initiated work. I found the HTML/XML TF to be pretty much efficiently polite throughout which is not exactly my experience of similar discussions in the broader community.

    • It would be desirable for the TAG to produce more (finalised) written output. Again, there's only so much you can type with nine people who have other things to do.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Monday, 17 October 2011 10:34:51 UTC