Note: Ideally, I'd like to come up with a new version of
http://www.w3.org/Guide/Dependency that integrates the WAI specific
process I'd like to see in place as well as all the other W3C
dependencies/requirements needs.
I tried for a while but can't come up with a clear picture of it.
So I'll just focus on WAI/W3C dependencies for now, starting from Tim
document though.
At some point, I'd like to see all W3C charters amended to refer
to this document.
DanielD - March 9, 1998.
Dependencies are set of requirements put on some group or groups by another group. This can take the form of a working group asking another to comply with a guideline or the form of a supervising body asking different groups to use the same method for doing something.
In the case of WAI, it was clear in the original briefing package that there would be dependencies brought up between the WAI technical review group (PF) and the W3C groups designing technical things (HTML, CSS, XML, etc).
However, that mention is not enough, and we need to track these dependencies to ensure that that there are upheld.
Also, new dependencies have arise past-charter time that were not clearly accounted for in any document, such as the new requirement to follow the WAI Page Authoring guidelines for all W3C spec (although this could be considered an obvious outcome by some).
Tracking a dependency is about defining it: which group it is on, what document is affected, what requirement should be met, what is the timeline, in short: what is the contract ?
In doing so, several contacts and phases can be defined, same as in a regular business contract.
The rest of this document attempts to define what should go in such a contract.
This defines the parties at the level of W3C groups (not individual, see contact below). Usually, the WAI itself would do that, e.g. point the SMIL working group as the recipient of the next technical review. The coordination group might help in refining this decision if there is an issue (say between adressing MATH or XML).
If the dependency is on several groups, a meta dependency can also be put on a supervising group, like W3M (W3C management) or a Coordination group.
Typicially the constraint will be on a document, for instance that a specification has a particular characteristic or capability or feature.
The WAI should identify the exact version of this document.
This should be stated very clearly so that one will be able to judge whether the dependency is met at any time.
It should define both timing and content matters (see negociation below).
The WAI is responsible for stating that requirement and maintaining its status for each dependency it brings up (potentially in different documents).
For instance, if the dependency is on all W3C WG so that the specifications they produce meet the WAI Page Author guidelines, this should be stated clearly in the TR guide documents and the WAI Plan page can keep up a record of which specs is compliant and which is not.
Another example: the WAI PF group has been maintaining a requirement/issue list for the ongoing review of CSS2 and SMIL (one document only in that case).
For all groups involved, individual contacts should be given. This will normally be the chairs, but may be specific experts. In any case, the chair always has the responsability for the group meeting its goals.
These contact persons are responsible for making sure the right message is flowing from one group to the other. They are the trusted point of reference and also ensure coordination.
They also define the pragmatic mechanism by which requirement documents are exchanged and the dialog happens (which web pages, which mailing list are used, which expert is attending which meeting, etc).
There are two kinds of negociation: time-wise and content-wise.
The first step in a WAI PF/W3C WG dependency definition is to define the timeline:
Content-wise negociation will usually happen as consensus is being built by both groups.
The normal consensus process applies here. If the WAI group feels that no attention has been given to an issue or that the response from the W3C group is not meeting the requirement presented, consensus is not reached.
There is a matter of weight to take into account and whether or not WAI should just be counted as one vote or if it can veto if needed.
