15:29:27 RRSAgent has joined #newstd 15:29:27 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/07/12-newstd-irc 15:29:29 RRSAgent, make logs world 15:29:29 Zakim has joined #newstd 15:29:31 Zakim, this will be 63978 15:29:31 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 15:29:32 Meeting: New Standards Vision Task Force Teleconference 15:29:32 Date: 12 July 2010 15:29:41 zakim, this is newstd 15:29:41 sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'newstd' in progress or scheduled at this time 15:29:42 zakim, this is newst 15:29:44 sorry, Ian, I do not see a conference named 'newst' in progress or scheduled at this time 15:29:53 zakim, room for 15? 15:29:54 ok, Ian; conference Team_(newstd)15:29Z scheduled with code 63978 (NEWST) for 60 minutes until 1629Z 15:29:59 Team_(newstd)15:29Z has now started 15:30:04 rrsagent, set logs public 15:30:06 +Ian 15:30:21 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vision-newstd/2010Jul/0017.html 15:30:29 +Larry_Rosen 15:30:29 Arnaud has joined #newstd 15:30:32 agenda+ Light review of current survey results 15:30:40 agenda+ How to start turning ideas into proposals? 15:30:44 zakim, who's here? 15:30:44 On the phone I see Ian, Larry_Rosen 15:30:45 On IRC I see Arnaud, Zakim, RRSAgent, hhalpin, Ian, olivier, tlr, karl, trackbot, dom 15:30:53 agenda+ Liaison improvements 15:31:01 Ian, I can't join yet, I'll be a bit late 15:31:06 lrosen has joined #newstd 15:31:06 k 15:32:02 Regrets+ Dom 15:32:36 Zakim, what's the code? 15:32:36 the conference code is 63978 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), hhalpin 15:32:51 +??P0 15:33:00 Zakim, ??P0 is hhalpin 15:33:00 +hhalpin; got it 15:33:43 +Eduardo_Gutentag 15:33:56 zakim, who's here? 15:33:56 On the phone I see Ian, Larry_Rosen, hhalpin, Eduardo_Gutentag 15:33:58 On IRC I see lrosen, Arnaud, Zakim, RRSAgent, hhalpin, Ian, olivier, tlr, karl, trackbot, dom 15:34:24 agenda+ slides for the AB presentation 15:34:30 Regrets+ tlr 15:34:58 regrets+ Chris Messina 15:35:13 Eduardo has joined #newstd 15:36:26 try +44.203.318.0479. 15:36:38 zakim, drop hhalpin 15:36:38 hhalpin is being disconnected 15:36:39 -hhalpin 15:36:52 zakim, who's here? 15:36:52 On the phone I see Ian, Larry_Rosen, Eduardo_Gutentag 15:36:59 On IRC I see Eduardo, lrosen, Arnaud, Zakim, RRSAgent, hhalpin, Ian, olivier, tlr, karl, trackbot, dom 15:37:47 Regrets+ karl 15:39:31 -Larry_Rosen 15:39:51 zakim, who's here? 15:39:51 On the phone I see Ian, Eduardo_Gutentag 15:39:53 On IRC I see Eduardo, lrosen, Arnaud, Zakim, RRSAgent, hhalpin, Ian, olivier, tlr, karl, trackbot, dom 15:40:11 +Larry_Rosen 15:41:00 zakim, unmute lrosen 15:41:00 sorry, Ian, I do not know which phone connection belongs to lrosen 15:41:34 zakim, who's here? 15:41:34 On the phone I see Ian, Eduardo_Gutentag, Larry_Rosen 15:41:35 On IRC I see Eduardo, lrosen, Arnaud, Zakim, RRSAgent, hhalpin, Ian, olivier, tlr, karl, trackbot, dom 15:43:11 Zakim, what's the code? 15:43:11 the conference code is 63978 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), hhalpin 15:44:09 +??P0 15:44:26 ??P0 is hhalpin 15:44:33 Zakim, ??P0 is hhalpin 15:44:33 +hhalpin; got it 15:44:37 zakim, mute hhalpin 15:44:37 hhalpin should now be muted 15:44:53 zakim, take up item 1 15:44:53 agendum 1. "Light review of current survey results" taken up [from Ian] 15:45:08 Survey results -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/newstd2/results 15:45:56 IJ observations on survey results -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vision-newstd/2010Jul/0016.html 15:47:08 IJ: Anybody look at results? 15:47:14 I have looked at them. 15:47:14 [Just IJ for now] 15:47:32 Interesting, a mix of W3C sort of folks and web developers it seemed. 15:47:46 activities needing a host: 15:47:46 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/newstd2/results#xq6 15:48:27 EG: There may be an OASIS TC working on BML (not sure) 15:49:34 IJ: Anyone know http://openrecommender.org? 15:55:39 Strong +1 on not having "two-tiered" process, but on seeing how these things work. 15:55:40 together 15:55:42 q+ 15:55:51 IJ: I liked Kimberly's comment. 15:56:33 EG: Manu's comment about less team involvement seems consistent as well 15:56:41 ack hhalpin 15:57:27 hhalpin: One thing I'd like to discuss....strong emphasis about taking grassroots efforts with energy and helping them with pat pol and infrastructure. 15:58:13 the idea is to clarify how to move from a lightweight process to a more formal track. 15:58:24 almost no-one seems to disagree there. 15:58:33 it WOULD be useful. 15:58:56 q+ 15:59:21 of course, moving to a more formal process needs to an option. 15:59:51 that some groups may not need to take. 15:59:56 or want to even. 16:00:25 ack E 16:00:55 IJ: I am hearing some people say that if we get the lightweight thing right, we may not need the heavier weight thing. What do you see as the value of the classical track? 16:01:13 EG: It's important to remember that there are multiple communities, who want different things (and different degrees of formality) 16:01:36 +1 16:01:41 ... there wil be people want nothing to do with W3C, but there are other communities who will be happy if we have something to offer. 16:01:46 +1 16:03:59 It seems to me the main reason for the heavy-weight track is the legal agreements and the fact that it can work in very politically fraught technological spaces. 16:04:24 but I'm not a lawyer, would like to hear what larry has to say... 16:04:30 q+ 16:05:09 +Arnaud_LeHors 16:05:13 ack L 16:05:15 q+ 16:05:32 IJ: Who values what aspects of the classical track? 16:06:12 lrosen: I can't imagine Linux being developed by a lightweight mechanism...it's too big to be done in someone's garage. 16:06:20 q+ 16:06:54 ...what I understand is that there are some things that may be just between a few companies, or just a few developers, or it's new and not yet provent, or maybe a couple of anarchists who want to do something out of the ordinary...that's what the lightweight process is for. 16:07:09 ...but for _more meaningful agreement_ you move to a more formal process....a different way of doing busines. 16:07:14 ack E 16:07:18 s/busines/business/ 16:08:01 Eduardo: it would be a good exercise to separate answers/comments to know where they came from. 16:08:19 Zakim, Arnaud_LeHors is me 16:08:19 +Arnaud; got it 16:08:35 ....for example, if someone says "zero-fee is important, but I would never participate in W3C' the other answers may not be that relevant. 16:08:37 ack hhalpin 16:08:59 Zakim, mute me 16:08:59 Arnaud should now be muted 16:09:01 hhalpin: we need to figure out why other groups using the XG process. 16:09:23 ....or how to transform it into a new lightweight process (requiring an in-depth evaluation, comparision to other similar processes) 16:09:28 q+ 16:09:58 hhalpin: what W3C needs to communicate is how the process evolved... 16:10:21 hhalpin: one characterization I've heard about w3c process is that it's good when things go wrong. 16:10:39 ...even if not crafted today for small communities that get along and are working closely 16:10:42 ack lrosen 16:11:08 lrosen: I've seen mature products come to apache and be required to go through the incubator process. 16:11:21 ...it's not that the mechanism of the project is wrong, it's that they need to learn how apache works. 16:11:42 ...those projects are likely to get promoted to top-level projects since there are mature communities that go with them, but there's a learning curve. 16:11:55 Zakim, unmute me 16:11:55 Arnaud was not muted, Arnaud 16:13:33 zakim, mute hhalpin 16:13:33 hhalpin should now be muted 16:13:34 q+ 16:13:54 IJ: Reasking Arnaud - what is the value and to whom of the second track? 16:14:20 Arnaud: On larry's comment -we are trying to make it easier for people to come to w3c..larry's comment suggests a bit the opposite --- forcing people to go through incubator group 16:14:28 agree with Arnaud, but Incubator should be an option. 16:15:16 IJ: Another way to view live is "everything starts as a community process" that is, as an XG. 16:15:21 some things are already mature, thus the "Public Submission" idea 16:15:58 Arnaud: To Ian's question "what's the value add of the classic process," I think the answer involves (1) IPR (2) Rigor 16:16:03 i.e. the community may already exist and have draft specs etc., and so could want to go straight to a heavier-weight process due to its value add, IP, maturity, etc. 16:16:22 Arnaud: The rigor can be painful at times, but that's the value. 16:17:16 ....it is an open question whether people will move from casual track to more formal one...hard to know. 16:17:17 ack lrosen 16:18:13 larry: I think Arnaud has it exactly right - I didn't mean to imply that graduating from incubator to top level project is a function of how they learn about us. There is a checklist (e.g., related to licenses, etc.). 16:18:46 ...there's a maturity level that needs to be met in order to fit in. 16:19:12 ...they need to certify to the rest of the community that they've met certain maturity standards to qualify them as fitting in and to satisfying the customers. 16:19:13 q? 16:20:42 i've never heard anyone in Apache say "I'd rather stay in the Incubator"! 16:20:59 q+ 16:21:35 ack E 16:21:37 I think the value add is mostly in RF status.... 16:21:46 I've heard lots of people say, "This project ought not to graduate to a top level project"! 16:21:52 IJ: I am hearing people say "we are implementing anyway; don't need your formal track for more rigor" 16:22:32 EG: In OASIS, one pattern was to get to "committee specification" then get implementation experience, then some time later, bring it for public review, redo it, and then go for OASIS standard. 16:22:34 q+\ 16:22:36 ...that almost never happened 16:22:37 q+ 16:22:43 queue==lrosen 16:22:48 q- \ 16:23:14 EG: In many cases, people went straight for the heavyweight process. 16:23:17 q? 16:23:37 ack lrosen 16:24:05 lrosen: I'm not sure why you are so shy, IJ about the value proposition of the classic track. I expect you'll have more in incubator status and a smaller number in classic track. 16:24:47 ...I could see graduating to the formal track additional efforts like: monthly reports, more promotion by W3C, more serious outreach to the industry 16:25:13 q+ 16:25:17 ...I don't think the problem is "no value perceived in the classic track" it's that there may not be a need for major value in an incubator project until it earns it. 16:25:18 ack A 16:25:36 q+ 16:25:59 By the way, Apache also has an "Attic". 16:26:32 Arnaud: Are we missing the main point here? We are worried that we are making it easier to start in incubator land and stay there, but that may not be the right question to look at. Remember, the premise was that we want to increase the chance that people bring more work to W3C. I don't think that opening up an incubator activity still increases the chance that more will come to w3c and then move to the rec track. 16:27:09 ...so I don't think we will be making things worse. We do need to be careful about not diluting the value associated with labels for specs. 16:27:35 [but who monitors the monitor? :) ] 16:28:06 ...the other thing is that ad-hoc groups all claim that they are not doing standards....they get together and start working on specs (e.g,. under OWF agreement) and they don't claim that they are doing standards, and they say "eventually we will submit it to ietf or w3c" but we haven't seen it happen yet. 16:28:23 ....making it easier for them to do the ad-hoc work in w3c increases the chances. 16:28:25 ack hhalpin 16:28:32 zakim, close the queue 16:28:32 ok, Ian, the speaker queue is closed 16:29:00 hhalpin: I think that the RF patent policy is a big value of the classic track. 16:29:21 zakim, next item 16:29:21 agendum 2. "How to start turning ideas into proposals?" taken up [from Ian] 16:30:26 -> http://www.w3.org/2010/03/openw3c.html 16:30:32 -> http://www.w3.org/2010/03/outposts-proposal-snapshot.html 16:32:19 IJ: Larry, would you be able to sketch a series of steps among 2 tiers. 16:36:41 q+ 16:36:59 ack Eduardo 16:40:16 q+ 16:40:32 EG: I've discussed with Ian idea of a time-limited patent commitment. 16:40:45 Larry: Need to be able to distinguish "contribution" from "participation" 16:42:05 ....right...might be a distinction useful between incubator and classic status 16:42:05 q? 16:42:28 -hhalpin 16:43:11 lrosen: I want discussion (participation, contribution) to take place on the OWF list. :) 16:43:47 ...if there are reasons why companies may not to agree to OWFa 16:44:08 ...if there are questions about application of OWFa to W3C, that discussion should happen here (or in PSIG) 16:47:56 q+ 16:48:18 ack I 16:49:13 IJ: Another bit to consider - starting with non-assert first, then license. 16:49:36 lrosen: We are doing that in OWF...non assert for field of use...to implement those parts of the spec whose function is defined in detail (not merely referenced) 16:50:09 ack Eduardo 16:50:53 EG: I don't really agree with the hierarchical approach you seem to be suggesting ... between non-assert and license. It's not clear that it's easier to get a non-assert than a license. 16:51:01 lrosen: OWF lets you issue a RF license if you prefer. 16:52:55 Ian, I have to admit to be surprised we are spending so much time on this 16:53:03 was this on the agenda? 16:53:07 part of agenda 2 16:56:09 lrosen: What I think ought to be done, is that W3C ought to rethink its patent policy. 16:56:27 ...if we come up with an incubator policy that looks something like OWFa...then graduating to the w3c patent policy would be a slight step backwards. 16:56:43 ...it almost causes the PSIG and W3C to say to itself, is it time to broaden our policy. 16:58:43 ACTION: Larry will write down thoughts on what lightweight commitments for incubator might look like and then what it would mean to graduate to w3c rec track (and relation to those commitments) 16:58:43 Sorry, couldn't find user - Larry 17:00:24 zakim, next item 17:00:24 agendum 3. "Liaison improvements" taken up [from Ian] 17:00:37 zakim, close item 3 17:00:37 agendum 3, Liaison improvements, closed 17:00:38 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 17:00:40 4. slides for the AB presentation [from Ian] 17:01:08 Arnaud: My first impression based on my own view of the process and people's responses to my overview is that "there doesn't seem to be much to gain to streamline the current process." 17:01:27 ...I would venture that it's probably best to leave it alone...but would be happy to hear from the group on that. 17:01:54 IJ: +1 to priority on incubator design 17:03:15 IJ: I think worth looking at both "operational improvements" and "some process tweaks" 17:03:31 Arnaud: +1 to looking at those somewhat, but those aren't the main goal. 17:03:41 Topic: Next meeting 17:03:45 IJ: I will take to the list. 17:03:56 zakim, take up next item 17:03:56 agendum 4. "slides for the AB presentation" taken up [from Ian] 17:04:38 IJ: Feedback very welcome1 17:04:44 EG: I'll take another look. 17:04:47 rrsagent, make minutes 17:04:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/12-newstd-minutes.html Ian 17:04:49 -Eduardo_Gutentag 17:04:51 -Ian 17:04:53 -Larry_Rosen 17:04:53 -Arnaud 17:04:53 Team_(newstd)15:29Z has ended 17:04:55 Attendees were Ian, Larry_Rosen, hhalpin, Eduardo_Gutentag, Arnaud 17:05:02 Eduardo has left #newstd 17:06:57 lrosen has left #newstd 17:18:07 karl has joined #newstd 17:51:36 Arnaud has left #newstd 20:01:58 olivier has joined #newstd