W3C Process: A Means to an End

Dan Connolly

W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability
Washington, DC 27-28 Apr 2005

W3C Core Values

Consensus
Interoperability
Good Design
Quality

The End: Technology Deployment

Technologies
- XHTML, CSS, MathML, SVG, SMIL (Interaction Domain)
- RDF, XML D-Sig (Technology and Society)
- XML Schema, SOAP (Architecture Domain)
Integrated approach
- Internationalization
- Web Accessibility
- Web Architecture (TAG)

Web Architecture

Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One
W3C Recommendation 15 December 2004

Identify with URIs
Safe retrieval
Generic URIs
QName Mapping

These are the minimally constraining design guidelines that allowed the Web to spread the way it did: a little a time, with each new bit benefitting from the rest of the Web.

Observations about People and Technology

The Evolutionary Cycle

Research
Prototyping
Standardization
Deployment

Community Scale

design by 1 or 2 or a few
development by a dozen or so
review by a few hundred
early adoption by communities of various sizes**
global consensus

Nuts and Bolts

I'm just a bill...

Semi-formal preparation
Activity Creation/Modification (W3C Decision)
Working Group, toward Last Call
Last Call
Candidate Recommendation
Proposed Recommendation
Recommendation

Process is based on experience. For each rule in the process, I could probably tell you a story of what happened before that rule was there. e.g. 8 week notice for meetings is based on 4 weeks to find the relevant people in an organization and 4 weeks to buy an advance ticket.

See also: process diagram.

Semi-formal preparation

Submissions
W3C Workshops (you are here)
Interest Groups
Mailing Lists
Academic, Industry Conferences

Activity Creation/Modification (W3C Decision)

Activity Proposal from Director/Team to Membership
Membership responds with advice
Director announces Decision, allocating resources (or not)

Activity Proposal from Director/Team to Membership

Context
- research, industry, market status
- existing W3C members? new members?
- related efforts elsewhere?
- why here at W3C? Why now?
Proposal, Resources
- structure: Working Groups, Interest Groups, scope
- resources: team contacts, travel, communications, systems

Membership responds with advice

each member responds thru its Advisory Committee Representative
advice may be shared with other members or sent only to The Director (and team)

Director announces Decision, allocating resources (or not)

should be made by consensus; establishes mandate
- may proceed despite objections, provided justification is given
may incorporate suggested changes

Working Group, toward Last Call

mechanics/infrustructure, norms
- mailing lists
- teleconferences
- face-to-face meetings
- IRC
- shared web space
  - Internal Drafts
  - Issues list
  - Test suite
regular publication
engage peer groups**
- if you go into the scope of group X, you owe them the right of review
- e.g. Web Architecture, XML
- integrated Internationalization, Accessibility review
best-effort response to community review

Story Telling and Test Cases

Story telling (aka Use Cases, Requirements)
goal: Stories that scope the problem and make sense to both users and developers
Test Cases, Examples

Last Call

starts with WG decision that all issues are addressed
formally document that all dependencies are discharged
formally address all issues raised

Candidate Recommendation

starts with Director's Decision that Last Call achieved sufficient review, consensus, etc.
formally document that all features are implemented
exit criteria, e.g.
- each feature, issue should have a test
- two implementations should pass all tests
formally address all issues

Proposed Recommendation

seek official endorsement from W3C membership
formally address all issues

Recommendation

press release, party, ...
errata, maintenance
what comes next? start the cycle again...