Headlights2013/CG2WG

From W3C Wiki
< Headlights2013
(Redirected from CG2WG)

Which Community and Business Groups Should Transition to Working Group

This task force was active between February and July 2013. It is now closed.
Those interested in CGs and BGs operations are invited to join the Community Council which mission is to promote and enhance CGs.

Introduction

This public wiki holds notes related to the 2013 Headlights task force on Which Community and Business Groups Should Transition to Working Group.
The task force is open to anyone. Contact Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>.

Public mailing list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cg2wg/
(Mailing list subscribers)


Anticipated activities

    • Figuring out which among the 110+ CGs/BGs to transition to Working Group.
    • To do so the TF might find useful to do an inventory, come up with broad classification.
    • Classification, to help with triage, might include which group don't intend to create a spec, what parent W3C activities govern them, etc.
    • The TF might consider other taxonomies (e.g. in what language do CGs operate).
    • The TF might also realize that a tool is needed to help determine whether groups are active or inactive.

Timeline

    • February: Formal "launch date"
    • February - June: Develop ideas
    • 9-11 June: W3C discusses at its annual Membership meeting (Minutes)
    • June - July: Further refinement
    • July: W3C management evaluates proposal and determines what resources to allocate. (Slide deck)

Participants

    • Coralie Mercier, W3C, Chair
    • Jeff Jaffe, W3C
    • Ian Jacobs, W3C
    • Wendy Seltzer, W3C
    • Sandro Hawke, W3C
    • Alan Bird, W3C
    • Steve Holbrook, IBM
    • Renato Ianella

Notes from the questionnaire

    • 3 groups plan to request that a specification transition to a Working Group within six months:
      • Cloud Computing
      • Argumentation
      • Web Media Text Tracks (Dave Singer noted “under discussion with Philippe, and other chairs”)
    • 8 groups have a specification that is a candidate for transition to a Working Group but have no schedule yet for doing so:
      • Web Payments
      • ODRL
      • Open Annotation
      • CSS Selector as Fragment Identifiers
      • Locations and Addresses
      • MicroXML
      • Speech API
      • EXPath

Additional notes (not from the survey)

  • custexpdata → digitalData WG

Analysis - Transitions data

35 CG chairs took the survey (out of 125 CGs, 29 of which have no Chair).

Transitions to date

  • JSON for Linking Data CG → RDF WG
  • Responsive Images CG → HTML WG

Transitions next 6 months

Good fit for T-and-S

Good fit for UbiWeb

  • Core Mobile → Web and Mobile Interest Group [under AC review]

Good fit for Interaction

Chair anticipates transition; no schedule

Good fit for T-and-S

Good fit for UbiWeb

Good fit for Interaction

Possible transitions in the longer term

Other groups providing a spec, for which chairs took the survey, and do not yet expect to transition.


Good fit for T-and-S

Good fit for UbiWeb

Good fit for Interaction

Analysis - Recommendations from TF

  • Conduct this type of evaluation annually
  • Implement known UX and infrastructure improvements (from TPAC 2012 and before)
  • Develop new tools
    • Discovery (e.g. Enable AC reps to find groups for employees of their org)
    • Heat-maps (e.g. Data for CG integration with W3C Domains)
    • Activity Tracking (e.g. General monitoring and assessment of groups' health (scalability challenge))
  • Raise 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.

Survey results

See survey results. Here's a summary table @@not finished

Survey results summary
Group (responder) Start Active Near complete Spec/Forum Spec already in WG / WG within 6 months / WG without schedule / No transition to WG Too early, not enough impl. WG = too much bureaucracy Patent commitments hinder Key players not W3C Members Notes
Change Tracking Markup (Mohamed Zergaoui) 2012-10 y n spec no WG y
Oil, Gas and Chemicals (Roger Cutler) 2011-08 n x forum x Might advance a spec involved with a Web Service interface into either SKOS or OWL. Key players not available.
Web Payments (Manu Sporny) 2011-06 y n spec WG without schedule
High-Performance Computing (Annette Greiner) 2011-10 y n spec no WG y
Schema Bib Extend (Richard Wallis) 2012-09 y y forum x CG to support public-vocabs for extensions to their generic specifications.
ODRL (Renato Iannella) 2011-07 y y spec WG without schedule
Restricted Media (Wendy Seltzer) 2012-03 y n forum x
Livestock Data Interchange Standards (Andrew Cooke) 2013-02 y n spec no WG y y y
Cloud Computing (Russell Potter) 2011-11 n done spec WG within 6 months
Argumentation (Adam Sobieski) 2012-05 y n spec WG within 6 months
Open Annotation (Robert Sanderson, Paolo Ciccarese) 2011-12 y y spec WG without schedule Wants to transition
Semantic Web Interfaces (Paola Di Maio) 2012-10 y n forum, maybe spec no WG y Exploratory work.
Interactive APIs (Florian Daniel) 2013-02 y n spec no WG y
Print and Page Layout (Tony Graham) 2012-03 y n spec no WG y
CSS Selector as Fragment Identifiers (Eric Meyer) 2012-03 y n spec WG without schedule y
Web Observatory (David De Roure) 2012-03 active n forum First phase: catalogues and/or guidelines. Then, may choose to produce a specification.
Open Data Spain (Martín Álvarez) 2012-12 active n forum No transition to WG No need of transition to WG.
HTML5 Specifications (Anas R.) 2012-02 inactive n spec No transition to WG Too early, not enough impl. WG = too much bureaucracy Patent commitments hinder
Unhosted (Michiel de Jong) 2011-09 active near completion forum No transition to WG Too early, not enough impl. WG = too much bureaucracy Group uses https://groups.google.com/forum#!forum/unhosted as main forum, https://ietf.org/id/draft-dejong-remotestorage-00.txt for spec, and github for code, and this is good enough.
Client and Server JavaScript APIs (Alexandre Morgaut) 2012-05 active n forum+spec No transition to WG Too early, not enough impl. Key players not W3C Members Goal to potentially end up with a dedicated W3C Working Group to provide server specific specifications.
Locations and Addresses (Andrea Perego) 2012-08 active n spec WG without schedule
Read Write Web (Melvin Carvalho) 2011-08 active n forum+spec No transition to WG Too early, not enough impl.
Augmented Reality (Augmented Web) (Rob Manson) 2011-08 active n forum Once the MediaStreams (gUM), Web Audio and WebRTC standards stabilise and become more widely available in browsers there will be a significant increase in our activity as people really start using the Augmented Web in production applications.
Web media text tracks (David Singer) 2011-09 active near completion spec WG within 6 months under discussion with Philippe, and other chairs
MicroXML (Uche Ogbuji) 2012-07 active near completion spec WG without schedule Considering transitioning to XML Core WG. Group drafted a spec, now folks work on implementations.
Speech API (Glen Shires) 2012-04 active near completion spec+forum WG without schedule Transition strategy is for the specification to become part of future HTML and/or WebApps work.
EXPath (Florent Georges) 2012-04 active n spec WG without schedule
Revising W3C process (chaals) 2011-11 forum
Script Library (Mike Taylor) 2011-11 inactive n forum No transition to WG Close CG?
VIVO Open Research Networking (Jonathan Corson-Rikert) 2011-11 inactive n forum
Geospatial Semantic Web (Alejandra Garcia Rojas) 2012-12 active n forum
Responsive Images (Marcos Caceres) 2012-02 active n spec Spec already in WG Too early, not enough impl.
Ontology-Lexica (Philipp Cimiano) 2011-07 active near completion spec No transition to WG WG = too much bureaucracy Key players not W3C Members discussed with Ivan Herman who recommended to produce a vocabulary and host it under W3C Vocab.
Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Headlights2013/CG2WG&oldid=67770"