RE: Status of D-AG0014, coordination / liaison outside W3C

Greetings,

	Goals 13 & 14 were originally separated into two for precisely the
purpose of indicating the distinction you mention, i.e. that of
distinguishing between our relationship to groups within W3C and those
without. I think that it is incorrect to consolidate the two goals into one.


	I specifically chose two separate action verbs for these two goals
carefully, "co-ordinate" to refer to our actions with respect to other W3C
groups and "liase" with respect to those outside of W3C. The reason I chose
to separate these two goals originally was because our posture toward them,
and our end goal in each case, will be very different. 

	In the case of groups within W3C, we can and must co-ordinate our
activities. We can communicate freely with these groups as equals in the W3C
enterprise. We have specific rights of review on the products of other
working groups, defined by the W3C process document, and in the case of any
conflict, we have a well-defined means of resolution. And we may have
confidence that any such conflict *will* be resolved, even if it requires
mediation by the Director, because one of the "Prime Directives" of W3C
itself is that the W3C should not publish mutually contradicting
specifications. This 'rule of consistency', while it is not written in text
in any specific W3C document (to my knowledge) is a very strong overarching
principle and exceptions to it are frowned upon, to say the least.
Activities such as the W3C TAG are devised precisely to prevent such
conflicts.

	With respect to groups outside of W3C, no such restriction holds. We
may, in case of conflict either of vision or detail, attempt to liase with
these groups, offer our opinions, present our arguments, and hope for the
best. However, there is no method of binding arbitration or even any rule
that says that these groups have to consider our pleas. This works both
ways, in that groups outside W3C can expect no more than consideration from
our own group, and there is no overarching consistency principle for
standards created by different standards bodies. There is no ISO to provide
mediation in the case of conflict, as there is with ANSI, as an example.
Therefore, our posture in this case is very different, and our ability to
influence the outcome much less.

	I see these activities as being very different, and would not like
to see them merged. We are under an obligation to be consistent with other
W3C groups, while we are not with groups outside W3C. Let's work hard to
ensure consistency within W3C, make a best faith attempt to do so with
groups outside it, and continue to make this distinction. 

Regards,

D-


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Bunting [mailto:db134722@iPlanet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 7:22 PM
> To: Chris Ferris; Public W/S Arch
> Subject: Status of D-AG0014, coordination / liaison outside W3C
> 
> 
> Chris et al,
> 
> With very little discussion, we seem to be closing on words from Hugo
> and David Orchard that cover both D-AG0013 and D-AG0014.  Technically,
> D-AG0014 should be considered closed and subsumed by the 
> following words
> for D-AG0013:
> 
>    co-ordinate with other W3C Working Groups, the Technical
>    Architecture Groups and other groups doing Web services related
>    work in order to maintain a coherent architecture for Web services.
> 
> Since we've had so little discussion, this position should be 
> considered
> tentative.  Does anyone want (for example) to clarify "other groups
> doing Web services related work" to specifically encompass those not
> part of the W3C?
> 
> thanx,
>     doug
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 09:45:48 UTC