Re: W3C Community Group

Hi Achim,

If you agree with me on having an „XProc“ Community Group, please quote
> this line and send a „+1“ mail. If you disagree, I am looking forward for
> your arguments, but sending a „-1“ mail will be adequate to.
>

+1

Your argument makes perfect sense to me.

As you pointed out, the current use cases community group created a little
over a year ago had a completely different purpose. The idea then was to,
well, collect as many use cases as possible from the (presumably) large but
silent volume of XProc (and other types of pipeline languages) users. At
this point, the next version of XProc was to use a non-XML syntax, which
played a huge role when creating the community group--the *other* reason
for the group was to discuss and advance an XML syntax version of the new
XProc version. Not sure if that was ever properly expressed, though.

As I've said before, I would very much like to be part of this voluntary
effort to produce a new (XML syntax) version of XProc. Considering your
arguments, and Liam's, I think it's important to keep the W3C connection so
a W3C community group for XProc is, to me, the logical way to go.

All the best,

/Ari



On 8 March 2017 at 16:55, Achim Berndzen <achim.berndzen@xml-project.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> please take this mail as  a contribution to the ongoing and very
> interesting discussion.
>
> I would like to say, that I am strongly in favour of having an XProc (3.0)
> community group. This might be in addition (with personal overlaps) to the
> existing "Data Pipelining Use Cases“ group or not. This group was founded
> in February 2016 in a completely different situation and with a completely
> different task. We thought it might be a good addition to the then existing
> Working Group and we might be able to assist the Working Group in some
> special topics.
>
> Since then: The working group has dissolved, in my reading even some of
> the tasks of the Community Group had dissolved because the discussion of
> use cases is now mainly oriented on the "XProc V2.0 Requirements“ (
> https://www.w3.org/TR/xproc-v2-req/). This does not mean to say the
> Community Group is useless, but in my thinking it not as important as it
> was in February 2016.
>
> And then we have the new „group of volunteers“ who meet in Amsterdam last
> year and then again around XML Prague 2017 in order to continue not the
> Community Groups work, but the Working Groups aim to develop a new and
> better version of XProc. The three options discussed so far are:
>
> 1) Ask all volunteer to join the „Data Pipeline Use Cases“ Community group.
> 2) To stay a „group of volunteers“ and do our working independently from
> any W3C structure/organisation
> 3) To have an „XProc Community Group“.
>
> As I said above, I am strongly in favour for option 3 and option 1 would
> be my second choice.
>
> Why? Having a Community Group is for me important for three reasons:
>
> 1) It tells people who we are and how we work. In my understanding the
> „group of volunteers“ tries to work like a Community Group: We have open
> and public discussions, publish our papers and results, taking into account
> arguments from everyone, being a group member or not, and inviting every
> one to join us in our work. (Have I forgotten something?) For me it is
> important to make this code of conduct public, so we actually encourage
> people to contribute to our work. And this is difficult to do by saying „We
> are a group of volunteer“, but easy if we say „We are a Community Group“.
>
> 2) I think Liam's hint about the legal questions or implications is
> important: If we continue to be a „group of volunteer“, we will (in short
> or in long terms) have to find some agreement on intellectual properties
> etc. Norm set out this questions as issue #1- #3 in the "1.1-specification“
> on Github in September last year but we have not talked about it yet. These
> questions might not be very important for us as members of the „group of
> volunteer“, but as some of us work for companies, these are questions we
> must settle. And the easiest way to answer them, is to transform the „group
> of volunteers“ into a Community Group.
>
> 3) The third argument has to do with marketing, with telling people about
> XProc, telling them its not dead and explaining the way it will evolve. If
> you look up XProc at wikipedia, the first sentence is "XProc is a W3C
> Recommendation to define an XML transformation language to define XML
> Pipelines.“ As a neeby, I would go to W3C’s web site to get some more
> information on XProc. If I would look for the most recent information on
> XProc, it would be „Working Group dissolved“. I think that Conal's and
> Jim’s arguments are right: We might do our work in a proper way, without
> using the resource or infrastructure provided by the W3C. But we might lose
> an important marketing channel for XProc, and –in my opinion– we need all
> the marketing we could get for XProc.
>
> Finally my favour for having a XProc Community Group has to do with hope:
> I hope that our work on XProc might raise the interest in it again, so
> there might be a Working Group again some day. Staying close with the W3C
> will make this transition obviously more easy. Having an XProc 3.0
> Recommendation one day might not be a hope, but an illusion, but an
> illusion I am not prepared to give up yet.
>
> And all this comes at virtually no costs, i.e. we do not have to change
> the way we intend to work or anything else if we transform the „group of
> volunteers“ into a Community Group.
>
> And why not work as „Data Pipelining Use Cases“? Well, as I said we might
> do this. But with regard to marketing, we had to change the groups charter
> and we had to change the name. "Data Pipelining Use Cases“ is clearly not
> the place to look for information on recent developments of XProc. I have
> no idea whether Ari and Nic as chairs are allowed to do this and whether
> they would agree to do this. But as I recall from our discussion with Liam
> in Prague, the name of of Community Group can not be changed for technical
> reasons. But: If we are a group of people working on the next version of
> XProc and try to attract more attention and invite for collaboration, then
> the word „XProc“ has definitely to be part of the Community Group’s name.
>
> I am very sorry for this long mail. I offer one's apologies to anyone for
> using an argument already mentioned in the discussion without proper
> credits.
>
> I have no idea, how to settle this case by using a mailing list, because
> we can not guess the position of people not taking part in the discussion.
> I think we need a consensus on this question, at least the inside the
> „group of volunteers“.
>
> May be this is one way:
> If you agree with me on having an „XProc“ Community Group, please quote
> this line and send a „+1“ mail. If you disagree, I am looking forward for
> your arguments, but sending a „-1“ mail will be adequate to.
>
>
> Greetings from Germany,
> Achim
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Achim Berndzen
> achim.berndzen@xml-project.com
>
> http://www.xml-project.com
>
>