New Standards Vision Task Force Teleconference

23 Aug 2010


See also: IRC log


Arnaud, Larry, Mike, Dom, Thomas, Ian (Chair, Scribe)


<trackbot> Date: 23 August 2010

mind meld debrief

1. Standards Progression

2. Infrastructure

3. Community Outreach

4. Developer Portal

key dates:

30 Aug

20 Sep

"There was another suggestion: if there have been previous efforts to

do similar things (e.g., www-talk or XGs), why did those not succeed,

or why do we think this iteration has a better chance of succeeding.


On individual participation v. support

<hhalpin> I always thought that the idea was that the membership model was going to stay more or less put for WGs, but that the new Community Group process (that may percolate later into WGs) would be open.

<Arnaud> +q

<hhalpin> +1 new idea forum running real fast

<dom> [re whether www-talk ever was what we're trying to do with the WIF: www-talk was where <img> was proposed, fwiw http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0182.html; that's also one of the places where Mark Nottingham announced its intent to work on the well-known location IETF draft ]

Arnaud: Look at what happened with HTML5....was developed externally and then brought to W3C.
... in the HTML WG case, most people who were participating externally were invited into the WG
... we have existing process on invited experts
... invitation may not be completely open-ended; not necessarily at odds with what we do today.

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to talk about WG/IG model

<hhalpin> notes that rebranding www-talk the "Web Innovation Forum" might be an idea - www-talk back from the dead: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-talk/2010JulAug/

<hhalpin> www-talk has been dead for quite a while....

IJ: We need to be careful about artificial barriers as detriments to participation.

hhalpin: we did get innovation by opening up HTML WG; one way to look at this is to say that W3C wants to get innovation but that the process can still work for standards in the future
... the nice thing about the proposed community group is that it allows work to percolate up to WGs

lrosen: what are people saying has gone wrong with the HTML process?

<hhalpin> The HTML5 experience was seen as a bit of "one-off" thing, then the question is how could have had the W3C met their needs earlier?

IJ: Not sure "how HTML WG is going" is in scope. Agree "why went outside W3C" is in scope.

mike: one reason was that w3c bet on xml horse; minority view went elsewhere.
... we need to be sure we state clearly in the proposal that dissent is ok

<hhalpin> +1

tlr: back to diverging opinions question....there will be a piece of process nurturing dissent. Welcoming to all work. But that doesn't guarantee Membership support in standards working groups
... Question of when does something move from fringe to non-fringe....where are the governance mechanism

<tlr> right. I think that needs to be said explicitly

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to discuss html5 participation

lrosen: Analogy from apache process - once the board initiates a project, the project is on its own
... software team has a 3-month reporting requirement
... when the team can't deal with its own problems, the board steps in to help

tlr: Larry, do you think we need a community-driven governance question at all in W3C, or just community groups?

lrosen: I think you need a community governance model; need moderation of lists, for example.
... in apache, we require anyone who participates to sign a contributor agreement.
... implies a commitment of IPR
... the OWF CLA serves a similar function in a standards context
... there needs to be rules
... each group needs to be able to do its thing

tlr: Those sound more like "How you behave" issues
... I was referring more to "how W3C makes the decision what to take into the standards track"

<hhalpin> i.e. chartering and scope, tlr?

<tlr> chartering, scope, architecture

<tlr> and the scope of the consensus

lrosen: My preference is for community groups to operate via consensus...there are votes and opportunity to veto
... in Apache there are, as I understand, teams that have lots of active discussion...I've not seen it rise to the board level.
... The second point relates to something from an Arnaud email: whether at the end of the day, when the spec is published, people will sign an IPR commitment.
... that's not been tested in the standards world, but seems to be accepted in the apache world.

mike: this notion of the community as the center of consensus is the key here.
... the problem we are solving is when we had to get consensus across the entire community (with Director and TAG), that tended to drive people not on board with that consensus away.
... we are saying here that we will enable communities (even dissenting) to have discussions
... but when it moves to Rec, then they need to get the additional buy-in, but that's a value-add from the rec track
... I don't think the community process threatens the traditional model; it's a value add.


<Arnaud> +q

lrosen: What do you mean by moderation....in apache we grant committer status to people we trust

Arnaud: Another candidate name : Community Proposal Forum
... I have some concerns about degree of staff involvement.
... depends on level of automation involved.

IJ: Anticipate lots of automation; scalability a key to success

Mike: We want the fora to be open and technically focused. Some people use them as soapbox.
... discussions can get out of hand.
... I don't think that this will be a big problem; need to be sure that fora are welcoming to all

Arnaud: Regarding staff moderating the main forum...that's fine. My big concern is moderation is moderating community groups.

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to recap again

hhalpin: What are requirements to transition to community group

<hhalpin> so it's more of individual endorsement?

<hhalpin> i.e. otherwise people vote "no"? I'd say "individual endorsement"

hhalpin: yes, community groups have individual endorsement...need a certain level of endorsement.
... endorsement is "just yes' but voting is "yes/no"

IJ: Should transition to community group be "by endorsement" or "by vote"?

lrosen: By endorsement, what one means is "We endorse the formation of a community group"
... Maybe call it "topic" rather than "scope"
... we're going to set up a group for that...we'll forward them to the extant group
... and one of the things we have to do in creating a community group
... need a community group management committee
... they build community
... and get commitments
... and report
... and lack of activity (or of a report) may be a sign to close the group

dom: we shouldn't set the process in stone
... need experience first
... and don't automate until we have more experience.

Question: How are Community Supporters chosen?

<hhalpin> I'd say experienced standards people who are interested in the topic, not necessarily W3C Team.

IJ: How about volunteers (motivated people)?

lrosen: some apache experience...we have about 300 projects; board of 8 volunteers.
... each member of the board is the "shepherd" of a large number of projects
... ensure reporting done
... dedicated line of communication, but the shepherds don't do a lot
... there are also "mentors"
... mentors are listening on the list; their main role is to ensure people know the process
... and there's a self selected group of contributors
... the board needs to acknowledge the receipt of a contributor agreement.
... you don't want to control...want to keep lightweight
... There are also 300 members of the foundation who speak up where they want; they are privileged and get to vote for the board.

mike: +1 to what larry said. From what I observed in Apache, I think it would be a good model for this sort of thing
... community owns the work; they report periodically; there are mentors who are there both for advice and to help move things forward and to give consent that there is an acceptable level of community dynamic.

hhalpin: there needs to be a way to contact staff easily.

<tlr> IETF also uses "shepherds"

hhalpin: in terms with mentoring, I think that we need people with standards experience, and those who are good at managing communities

<dom> (we could probably start with a set of hand-picked volunteers; overtime, this could be volunteers-based work, possibly with a community-based election of there are more volunteers than people wanted?)

hhalpin: we could do an open call for volunteers.

<tlr> (mostly as people who help the ADs with their duties; similar to what Dom just said)

IJ: I am hearing "volunteers"

(with some staff)

mike: Energy and enthusiasm count for a lot here

Question: We need experienced editors. How do we bring new editors to the community?

IJ: Heard one concrete proposal - look for editors explicitly through charter view

<dom> (is this in scope for this tf?)

IJ: Should be ok in community groups....but how to bring editors into WGs?

Arnaud: Can take conservative approach and ask people who've demonstrated their skills. Or you can allow anyone to try and see if it works; if not, roll it back

Homework: Please answer orange questions on the list by the end of the week.

starting up the web innovation forum

<dom> ACTION Dom to answer orange questions in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community on the list by the end of the week

<trackbot> Created ACTION-6 - answer orange questions in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community on the list by the end of the week [on Dominique Hazaƫl-Massieux - due 2010-08-30].

<hhalpin> Seems like blog with some moderated aggregation is the way to go.

hhalpin: consensus seems to be moving in direction of blog (possibly with moderated aggregation)
... not sure about status net in the short term; would need to run by systems team
... I'm happy to take an action item re: statusnet and aggregation of activity streams
... blog + aggregation seems like the way to go
... some conversations may be long-lasting...maybe need www-talk as well
... one issue with blog is that they are bursty...may not be able to sustain discussion

<Zakim> dom, you wanted to say that before tools we need a community

mike: blog posts can lead to new blog posts

dom: I agree that blogging is a good way to get constructive discussions to start.

<hhalpin> http://status.net/

dom: one point that we shouldn't lose focus on - any forum that we set up will only be useful if people are using it.
... who will subscribe to this blog (where anything could be posted)?
... who will be invited...

<hhalpin> "The world is it's own best model" - we need to launch the blog/forum and see who comes....I'd be pro a blog+a web-based discussion forum for extended discussion.

dom: ..what structure will promote discussions they have already started

Arnaud: the issue of whether to open it now or not....
... we don't have back end of proposal - moving to community group

<hhalpin> Well, if we launch the blog in say, Sept or October, then the group would only have to wait a month or so perhaps...

Arnaud: I think there are plenty of tools....
... I would guess the systems team will be aware of tools.

<scribe> ACTION: Harry to talk to systems team about status.net [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/23-newstd-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-7 - Talk to systems team about status.net [on Harry Halpin - due 2010-08-30].

lrosen: +1 to using the new open forum to continue discussions on tools,

<dom> [I think what we need is: streamlining W3C public accounts and opening them to anybody; opening up a blog open to anybody (but with a team of moderators); remind of www-talk and esw.w3.org and get it rolling]

lrosen: It's really easy to get volunteers...hard to get people to do work.

IJ: I am hearing blog + aggregation

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Harry to talk to systems team about status.net [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/08/23-newstd-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/08/23 17:11:47 $