WG Mechanics

What

Requirements Document

Provides testable motivations for specification
Published as a W3C Note (less process), will evolve
Chair solicits an editor

XML Protocol Specification

Describes XP in prose, and formally, e.g. as an XML Schema
Validated by implementation experience (Candidate Recommendation phase)
    Two interoperable implementations
en route ....
Working Drafts of specification (and Requirements Document)
    Publication "heartbeat" at least every 3 months
    Will be public, and generate feedback
    First publications require Director's approval
Last Call WD: requirements satisfied, solicit W3C-wide and public feedback
Candidate Recommentation WD: publically solicit implementation feedback
Proposed Recommendation WD: requirements, last-call issues, implementation satisfied
Recommendation

Issue List

Tracks technical issues not yet decided

Glossary

Promote common vocabulary/understanding
Requirements document, and/or Working Drafts

How: Communications

Mailing lists

• Primary discussion forum is public xml-dist-app
  Public by design: stay in touch with communities: ebXML, IETF, SOAP etc
  Make sure you are registered
• Member-only, administrative forum is w3-xml-protocol-wg
  For member-only matters, e.g. discussion involving other WG, for administrative purposes
  
• Both mailing lists are archived

Telcons

Weekly, agenda posted beforehand on w3-xml-protocol-wg
Minutes posted after grace period on member-list on xml-dist-app
Chair's discretion to remove member-confidential material from minutes
Chair solicits scribe
Limited bandwidth! (IRC Channel may be helpful)
Day and time: Wednesdays at 8a PST/11a EST/5p MET, for 60 minutes

F2F

Three or more per year, agenda and minutes as telcons
One or two public f2f meetings per year
Chair solicits suggestions for time/place of public f2f
Next f2f, Redmond WA, December 13-14, Microsoft hosting
Chair solicits suggestions for time/place of next two f2f (~March 2001, ~June 2001)

How: Process

Large Group!

Group may be subdivided, e.g. subgroup to propose message envelope
Consistent participation necessary for group success, W3C notion of "good standing"

Decision Making

W3C preference for Consensus
Straw polls, formal votes, etc
    Polls and votes recorded in minutes
Dissent may be registered
Minimise formal voting, rules to be posted

Style, "Rules of Order"

Issue put forward
Discuss (speakers list)
Formulate alternatives
Poll alternatives, reduce number, iterate

SOAP role

WG Charter:
"The Working Group shall start by developing a requirements document, and then evaluate the technical solutions proposed in the SOAP/1.1 submission against these requirements. If in this process the Working Group finds solutions that are agreed to be improvements over solutions suggested by SOAP 1.1, those improved solutions should be used."

Schedule