Agenda

• Transitions data
• Task force findings
• AC Meeting feedback
• Recommendations
• How to get there?

Transitions

Definition of Transitions:

• CG work to move to the Rec track
• CG draft charter to become a W3C Working Group charter

4 categories:

• Transitions to date
• Transitions next 6 months
• Chair anticipates transition; no schedule
• Chair does not anticipate transition

Transitions to date

2 CGs transitioned:

• JSON for Linking Data CG → RDF WG
  • JSON-LD Syntax 1.0
  • JSON-LD API 1.0
• Responsive Images CG → HTML WG
  • the picture element

Transitions next 6 months

• Good fit for T-and-S
  • Customer Experience Digital Data → digitalData Working Group [in discussion with Team]
  • [Cloud Computing] [one-man work]
  • [Argumentation] [premature]
• Good fit for UbiWeb
  • Core Mobile → Web and Mobile Interest Group [under AC review]
• Good fit for Interaction
  • Web Media Text Tracks [in discussion with Team]

Chair anticipates transition; no schedule

• Good fit for T-and-S
  • ODRL
  • Open Annotation
  • Locations and Addresses
  • EXPath
  • Oil, Gas and Chemicals ("Might advance a spec")
• Good fit for UbiWeb
  • Web Payments (to reconcile with Web Payments Headlights)
  • MicroXML (to existing XML Core WG)
  • Speech API (to new Web Speech Working Group) [summer 2014]
• Good fit for Interaction
  • CSS Selector as Fragment Identifiers
  • Client and Server JavaScript APIs (to existing W3C WG)

Chair does not anticipate transition

Other groups providing a spec:

• Good fit for T-and-S
  • Read Write Web
  • Livestock Data Interchange Standards
  • Semantic Web Interfaces
• Good fit for UbiWeb
  • Change Tracking Markup
• Good fit for Interaction
  • High-Performance Computing
  • Interactive APIs
  • Print and Page Layout

Chair does not anticipate transition - Why?

Top reasons for not transitioning of these 7 groups:

• All (7): Too early, insufficient number of implementations yet.
• (1): Too narrow, not a key part of the Open Web Platform.
  • Livestock Data Interchange Standards
• (1): We suspect that key players will not want to make Working Group patent commitments.
  • Livestock Data Interchange Standards
• (1): Too many key players are not Members of W3C and would not want to follow the work into a Working Group.
  • Livestock Data Interchange Standards
• (1): Other: "Exploratory work"
  • Semantic Web Interfaces

Task force findings

• 35 CGs took the survey (28%)
• 29 CGs have no chair
• Steady growth, steady increase of participants
  • twice as many CG participants (3000) as WG participants
  • nearly 500 new participants in the past 4 months
• Barriers to transition are surprisingly acceptable
  • (12) Too early, and/or insufficient implementations
  • (3) non-W3C Members push-back to join a Working Group
  • (3) Working Groups == too much bureaucracy
  • (2) WG Patent commitments == perceived obstacle
• CGs are a success from perspective of original objectives

AC Meeting breakout feedback

• Support for new tools
  • Discovery
    • Enable AC reps to find groups for employees of their org
  • Heat-maps
    • Data for CG integration with W3C Domains
  • Activity Tracking
    • General monitoring and assessment of groups' health (scalability challenge)
• Support for known UX and infrastructure improvements
  • Expand transition process
  • FAQ on social aspects, best practices, how CGs and WGs relate when their scope are complementary
  • Integrate documentation into site
  • Integrate chair selection algorithm into CG process
  • Implement TPAC2012 request to distinguishing CG deliverables from other W3C deliverables
  • Automate somewhat the join procedure
  • Analytics for house-keeping (e.g. to close dormant groups)
• Raised items for W3M consideration
  • Getting shared agreement on what group type to use (i.e. pick IG over WG?)
  • Putting CGs in the Process Document. Pros, cons.

Recommendations

• Conduct this type of evaluation annually
  • Can be CG business as usual (vs. Headlights)
• Prioritize Current List of Proposed CG improvements
  • Feedback consistent with existing improvement proposals
  • Impact on 3000 participants
  • CGs show potential as source of new work
• Domain leads keep tabs on the work where no transition is expected (yet)
  • cf. Woods 2012 discussion on greater integration
  • cf. TPAC 2012 Next steps for CGs on Activity tracking

How to get there? [1/2]

Reprioritization of known UX and infrastructure improvements:

• Flesh out existing improvement proposals and review in community council
• Build plan with timeline
  • Current FTE estimate is 2-3:
    • Ted, Carine, Jean-Gui, Sorin: infrastructure
    • Coralie, Ian: documentation, process, policy
  • Current duration estimate is 3-4 months

How to get there? [2/2]

Development of new tools:

• Reconcile with Analytics & Dashboards Headlights
• Initial scoping phase
  • 2 weeks of Ted, Ian, Sysreq, Coralie: draft requirements
  • 3 x 1 day sessions of Ted, Ian, Coralie: create concrete plan for implementing
• Phase 1 development period to tackle prioritized features
  • Tentative FTE estimate is 2-3
  • Tentative duration estimate is 3 months
• Phase 2 development period
  • TBD

Appendix

Related materials:

• Slides: AC Meeting Breakout on CG/BG transitions
• Wiki: CG/BG transitions Task Force
• Slides: Woods 2012 "Community and Business Group Integration"

Note: This slide deck uses the same figures and data as the 13 June 2013 AC Meeting breakout on CG/BG transitions.