15:09:03 RRSAgent has joined #newstd 15:09:03 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/08/09-newstd-irc 15:09:05 RRSAgent, make logs world 15:09:07 Zakim, this will be 63978 15:09:07 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 15:09:08 Meeting: New Standards Vision Task Force Teleconference 15:09:08 Date: 09 August 2010 15:11:31 zakim, room for 15 at 11:30 for 90 minutes? 15:11:33 ok, Ian; conference Team_(newstd)15:30Z scheduled with code 63978 (NEWST) at 11:30 for 90 minutes until 1700Z 15:13:31 wtf, we have a call today? 15:13:37 ian? 15:13:47 yes 15:13:53 we have a call in 15? 15:14:11 I announced http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vision-newstd/2010Jul/0033.html 15:14:50 ugh 15:15:05 that was probably too much advance notice for me :) 15:15:12 anyway, will be there 15:15:48 great 15:27:54 Team_(newstd)15:30Z has now started 15:27:56 +Larry_Rosen 15:28:28 zakim, call thomas-781 15:28:28 ok, tlr; the call is being made 15:28:30 +Thomas 15:28:45 + +1.541.488.aaaa 15:28:47 - +1.541.488.aaaa 15:28:47 + +1.541.488.aaaa 15:28:49 +Ian 15:29:39 topic: early draft of proposal 15:29:56 Ian has changed the topic to: New standards task force: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Newstd 15:30:20 http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community 15:30:39 lrosen has joined #newstd 15:30:51 +Arnaud_LeHors 15:31:08 Arnaud has joined #newstd 15:31:40 +Eduardo_Gutentag 15:31:41 Eduardo has joined #newstd 15:32:13 regrets: Dom 15:33:58 +Mike_Champion 15:34:14 zakim, who's here? 15:34:14 On the phone I see Larry_Rosen, Thomas, +1.541.488.aaaa, Ian, Arnaud_LeHors, Eduardo_Gutentag, Mike_Champion 15:34:16 On IRC I see Eduardo, Arnaud, lrosen, RRSAgent, Ian, tlr, karl, Zakim, trackbot 15:34:26 zakim, aaaa is CarlC 15:34:26 +CarlC; got it 15:34:39 http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community 15:36:53 EG: Please mention time-out idea 15:40:27 mchampion: Structure seems ok 15:40:38 Ian: My goal is to work all week on this, send something for comment later this week. 15:42:53 Carl: Point out the benefit here is "play ground....some structured play" 15:43:30 ...some structure: 15:43:33 - way to introduce an idea 15:43:37 - moderator 15:43:50 IJ: What about peer-moderator? 15:44:09 Carl: Want to ensure that conversations don't degenerate quickly. 15:44:21 ...there needs to be some supervision 15:44:53 Mike: The problem that we (MS) have is similar...we need to talk to a community of people. 15:44:58 ....take WebSRT for example. 15:45:10 ...some pushback in some places on simplifying something, aligning it with user needs. 15:45:16 ...that discussion is happening outside W3C 15:46:07 ...having a place to brainstorm where there may be civil disagreement, is valuable. 15:50:24 IJ: I can see a W3C with three things: new discussion forum, community group, WG. 15:50:40 ...need to see what values are of current XG process or current IG process 15:51:34 mchampion: Some support in MS for reusing existing processes where we can. 15:51:43 ...some concern about a "community specification" and effect on brand. 15:52:15 ...some time ago, IGs were really the open forum where deep technical discussion occurred; WGs did the mechanics of spec writing 15:53:25 +q 15:54:15 IJ: This is the study phase; not suggesting we have 5 things 15:54:18 mchampion: +1 15:54:32 ack Arnaud 15:55:14 Arnaud: Agree that adding to what we have may not be a good idea. Phase I is figuring out what we want. Phase II is analyzing what we have and morphing something or renaming if we have to 15:56:35 chaals has joined #newstd 15:58:43 IJ: see also the two objectives synthesis from discussion 15:58:55 # Simplifying our interface to the world 15:59:13 # Identify and eliminate unnecessary process slowdowns. Provide rationale to the community for remaining timing expectations. 16:00:45 q? 16:00:57 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vision-newstd/2010Jul/0054.html 16:01:18 * The vision statements 16:01:18 * The objectives. What high-level messaging is important to 16:01:18 communicate our intent? Are the objectives all in scope? What's missing? 16:01:18 * Whether the comparison table is useful; how to improve it, what's 16:01:18 missing, and so on. 16:05:53 Arnaud: One question of clarification - what is meant by new idea forum 16:06:03 Arnaud: "One idea: if a community group is created, discussion SHOULD move there." 16:06:06 is that SHOULD or MUST? 16:06:34 Arnaud: I see this as sort of a forum for doing a public call for participation. 16:06:39 ...perhaps some discussion of scope, etc. 16:06:42 ..and then you move on. 16:07:40 [notification requirements] 16:08:04 +Andy 16:08:17 http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community 16:09:58 q+ 16:10:09 ack lr 16:11:37 lrosen: What infrastructure, services are available to newly formed community group? 16:14:37 IJ: Progression along multiple axes (infrastructure, legal, etc.) 16:15:19 lrosen: In Apache there are various levels of responsibility, e.g., committer privs, v. members who can vote, ... 16:18:00 lrosen: In IETF, anyone can participate and that can sometimes cause problems.... 16:19:04 ...in Apache, you don't just say you want to be a project... 16:19:20 ...there is an incubator project management committee. 16:19:59 ...once a project has started: 16:20:08 * anybody can read email 16:20:16 * only trusted people become committers 16:20:55 [Discussion of what hurdles should look like and how much] 16:21:37 [IJ notes that "peer-selected people" is more interesting than "self-selecting"] 16:22:10 Andy: One observation about the two different systems (open source, open standards) while acknowledging how they meet in the middiel. 16:22:14 s/middiel/middle/ 16:22:30 ...when you are in the standards-creation mode, it tends to be more of a discussion + voting and ultimately more binary 16:22:53 ...in the open source world, there is much more granularity - you can make changes line-by-line or module-by-module with multiple authors. 16:23:10 ...the opportunities for problems may be greater in the case of code than in the case of standards (which may only be a few pages) 16:24:32 lrosen: I understand that there are differences here...not my intention to sell the Apache model here. 16:25:11 ...trying to highlight that there are these mechanisms that have evolved in Apache to provide for a kind of equitable, peer-directed, reputational value assigned to people who participate. 16:25:23 ...it has worked successfully in the software world...not sure if it would work in standards world. 16:25:35 ...I agree it is overloaded with process... 16:25:45 ...I merely present it as a model to draw from. 16:26:34 mchampion has joined #newstd 16:27:10 carl: The IETF went through a similar process...the reality is that each group, depending on what it's doing, has a set of processes. 16:27:20 q 16:27:30 ...w3c is seeking to distinguish itself (e.g., via its inception then its RF policy) 16:27:33 q+ 16:27:39 ...agree we should take best from various fora and tie it back together. 16:27:49 ...you always compete with organizations that have less structure but that are transient 16:28:10 ...W3C will face issues like (1) installed based (2) membership structure (3) may find itself easily conflicted 16:28:30 ...much of the stress we are seeing is how to encourage ideas without disturbing the installed base. 16:28:36 queue=mike, thomas 16:30:13 ack mike 16:30:29 IJ: Not reinventing W3C; adding a new offering we've not traditionally offered. 16:30:40 Carl: Management needs to decide whether this is evolution or revolution. 16:30:53 ...need to focus on amount of change management and members are willing to accept 16:31:12 ...what are risks of creating a new track? not creating ti? 16:31:15 s/ti?/it? 16:31:35 mchampion: There seems to be less dissent on a "new ideas forum" 16:31:54 +q 16:32:07 ...perhaps we can move quickly on that...and continue to ask people what prevents people from participating. 16:33:06 q+ Arnaud 16:33:29 mchampion: I think we can start the new idea forum quickly; doesn't require a process change. Suggest we make that happen sooner. 16:34:22 IJ: Should we try stuff out and experiment or wait to talk to the AC? 16:34:56 mchampion: I would have a bias towards action. I do think it would rude to modify the process, but something that doesn't require a process change or undermine the business model would be good to do and talk about preliminary results in November. 16:34:59 q+ 16:35:07 ack th 16:35:33 tlr: On open discussion fora: Larry cited an IETF WG where an open discussion got out of hand. 16:35:47 ...if there are two sets of discussions that chronically get out of hand, it's IPR and process discussions.... 16:36:16 ...individual submission is a valuable piece of the IETF process 16:36:36 ...what can W3C learn from this? 16:36:47 ...is the lesson that the gating factor towards a lightweight forum.... 16:37:07 ...might be "put an initial draft on the table and you get a group to discuss it right away" 16:38:25 +1 to Thomas -- quickly create a mechanism to put ideas out in front of W3C community for discussion and review 16:38:33 carl: +1 16:38:56 q+ 16:39:04 ack Arnaud 16:39:21 Arnaud: How far do we want to go into discussing the process? 16:39:52 s/an IETF WG/IETF IPR WG/ 16:40:02 ....you can define a wide range, from sourceforge to Apache 16:42:02 IJ: Yes, we want to try to come up with consensus on values for various parameters. But not on this call or this week. 16:42:17 Arnaud: There are some strong beliefs associated with various models. 16:43:00 rrsagent, make minutes 16:43:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/08/09-newstd-minutes.html Ian 16:44:37 Arnaud: I would lean towards the trust position. 16:45:28 ack lrosen 16:47:20 lrosen: We need to involve more public since we are tailoring something to them 16:47:25 ...we should engage the public in this discussion 16:49:13 ACTION: Ian to put more explicitly in the wiki that public comment is welcome, and also set expectations about public outreach as the process matures. 16:49:14 Created ACTION-5 - Put more explicitly in the wiki that public comment is welcome, and also set expectations about public outreach as the process matures. [on Ian Jacobs - due 2010-08-16]. 16:49:23 ack me 16:52:38 rrsagent, make minutes 16:52:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/08/09-newstd-minutes.html Ian 16:52:44 Topic: Next meeting 16:52:52 23 August, 11:30 ET for 90 minutes 16:53:22 ...agenda likely to be about feedback from next week's management meeting 16:53:34 -Thomas 16:53:35 rrsagent, make minutes 16:53:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/08/09-newstd-minutes.html Ian 16:53:36 -Andy 16:53:36 -Eduardo_Gutentag 16:53:37 -Larry_Rosen 16:53:38 -Arnaud_LeHors 16:53:38 -CarlC 16:53:40 -Ian 16:53:46 Eduardo has left #newstd 16:53:47 Arnaud has left #newstd 17:05:00 disconnecting the lone participant, Mike_Champion, in Team_(newstd)15:30Z 17:05:03 Team_(newstd)15:30Z has ended 17:05:06 Attendees were Larry_Rosen, Thomas, +1.541.488.aaaa, Ian, Arnaud_LeHors, Eduardo_Gutentag, Mike_Champion, CarlC, Andy 17:11:10 lrosen has left #newstd