Chair Training, episode 1: W3C, Process, and the W3C Team

23 Jan 2014

See also: IRC log | Audio recording



Philippe Le Hégaret (Chair, presenter), Doug Schepers, Judy Brewer , Liza Daly, Jim Allan, Paul Cotton, Wendy Seltzer, Charles McCathie Nevile, Coralie Mercier (Scribe), Brad Hill, Kenny Zhang, Joshue O Connor, Shawn Henry, Ted Guild, Jeff Jaffe, Dominik Röttsches, Giri Mandyam, Nigel Megitt, AWK (Andrew Kirkpatrick?), Jeanne Spellman, Debbie Dahl, Andy Coleman, Wu Wei, Sharron Rush, Caroline Baron, Jan Richards, Natasha Rooney, Scott Peterson, Shadi Abou-Zahra, [IPcaller]?
Frederick Hirsch, Christine Runnegar, Virginie Galindo, Cameron McCormack, Lisa Seeman, Kathleen Wahlbin, Mark Sadecki, Kim Patch
Philippe Le Hégaret
Coralie Mercier


W3C, Process, and the W3C Team

<plh> http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/chairs-part4/

plh: I'm Philippe Le Hegaret
... W3C staff
... I used to be a Chair, still have fond memories
... I manage 15+ WGs and chairs do have issues

slide 2: Chair Training Modules

<plh> http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/chairs-part4/#/2

plh: today I'm going to talk about W3C process and W3C Team
... next session, on tooling
... other session on the Human Dimension
... and last on Focusing the Working Group

slide 3: Today's program

<plh> http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/chairs-part4/#/program

PLH: consensus and groups participants
... I'll talk about the organization of the team
... The domains
... Process document and Patent policy
... TAG and AB, and roles they're playing
... and the roles of team contacts and chairs

slide 5: W3C

<plh> http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/chairs-part4/#/w3c

PLH: W3C's mission: long-term growth of the Web
... W3C has principles: cooperation, adherences to principles, collective empowerment, royalty-free, and voluntary adoption
... W3C has four hosts
... MIT, ERCIM, Keio and Beihang
... each member of the W3C team is an employee of those four institutions, with a few exceptions
... we are spread around the world
... some of us work from home
... W3C is made of Members
... almost 400

slide 6: W3C

<plh> http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/chairs-part4/#/6

PLH: consensus is our core-value
... fairness
... responsiveness
... The W3C Process has a whole section on participations, appeal
... appeal is rarely engaged, but it has happened in the past
... The W3C Process is managed by the W3C Advisory Board
... the AB is currently making a revision of the Rec Track Process

slide 7: Consensus

<plh> http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/chairs-part4/#/consensus

PLH: consensus doesn't mean getting all to agree
... a good way to reach it? ask if individuals can live with a decision
... if they can't, they're entitled to raise a formal objection
... as a chair you're entitled to record the decision
... where there is a formal objection
... and you can move on.
... FOs are considered by the Director
... Chairs must report FOs during transitions, lest you're in violation with the W3C Process
... You need to provide a rationale
... and possibly a proposed resolution

slide 8: Group Participants


PLH: Member rep, invited expert, team rep
... each must represent at least one organization
... and is subject to the RF licensing requirements

slide 9: Member representatives


PLH: one per company
... authorized to represent the Member within a working group
... AC reps do not have to be employed by the company they represent
... this is a little-known fact.
... They are under the conflict of interest policy
... The Director MAY decline their participation.
... And they're also subject ot the RF licensing requirements of their Member org.

slide 10: Invited Experts


PLH: invited by the Chair because they have a particular expertise
... please talk with your team contact beforehand
... they represent an organization which isn't a Member; e.g. they're sometimes acting as liaisons
... we require they provide some information, disclosures

slide 11: Team representatives


PLH: they're W3C paid staff, or interns, or W3C Fellows
... under a dedicated team conflict of interest policy.
... they represent W3C within their working group.

slide 13: W3C Team Organization


PLH: look at the chart on the slide
... it gives an idea of how we are organized
... our technical work is concentrated within W3C domains

[Natasha Rooney joins]

PLH: We have now 5 domains
... the newest one is Information and Knowledge (INK)
... You may have interactions with our Marketing and Communications team, and our Systems team

slide 14: W3C Director


PLH: Tim BL is the lead technical architect at W3C
... is part of the TAG (Technical Architecture Group)
... he makes architectural choices
... he approves new groups
... he appoints group chairs
... and resolves the appeal of a working group decision

slide 15: W3C CEO


PLH: Jeff Jaffe leads the organization
... he's very open and I encourage you to talk to him as you need
... Ralph Swick is COO of the W3C and helps with the operations as well
... You can talk to him too
... RRSAgent, the bot we use to record the scribings, is a tool Ralph wrote.

slide 16: W3M


PLH: w3m = W3C Management
... some of the director's authority is delegated to W3M, e.g. group charters review
... W3M also approves chairs on behalf of the Director
... All feedback that comes from the Headlights excercise go through W3M

slide 17: Domain Leads


PLH: each W3C domain is lead by a Domain Lead
... we're here to assist you with your WG

slide 18: Team Contacts


PLH: TC are here to assist in your groups, they interface all W3C aspects and help the Chair.
... They represent the W3C and the Director.

slide 19: MarComm Team


PLH: marcomm takes care of comm with the Membership
... the PR and social media, the W3C website
... also publication rules

slide 20: W3C Domains


slide 21: INK


PLH: Linked Data, XML
... Digital Publishing (group created in 2013)

<Ralph> Data on the Web; more than Linked Data

slide 22: Information and Knowledge

slide 23: Interaction


PLH: core tech deployed on the client side, to some extent
... a lot of APIs too
... I18N

slide 25: T&S


PLH: Do Not Track, privacy, security, etc.


PLH: Maintenance of the Patent Policy too
... that domain hosts the Patent and Standards Interest Group (PSIG)
... pervasive monitoring is under that domain

slide 27: Ubiquitous Web


PLH: The Web from the device p.o.v
... car, TV, mobile


PLH: Some APIs, extending some APIs, Speech also is done under that domain

slide 29: Web Accessibility Initiative


PLH: WAI = Make the Web accessible to people with disabilities


PLH: They do specs, but also guidelines
... on authoring tools and content production

slide 31: All of the work we do interacts in some fashion


PLH: this draft chart shows how the work we do interacts
... some specs are more central than others
... but coordination and making sure you're well coordinated with other group is a very important factor

slide 32: Horizontal reviews


PLH: this is getting the review from other domains
... we do not have dedicated groups yet for aspects on security and mobile.
... if you believe your work needs review, don't hesitate to contact domains

slide 34: How do we make Web Standards?


PLH: We get ideas through submissions, headlights, workshops, business groups, and community groups
... sometimes, we can't fit ideas within an existing group, so we'll create one
... Only W3C Working Groups produce W3C Recommendations
... RF patent commitment required when you join a W3C working group
... you MUST follow the W3C process.

slide 35: From an idea to a Web standard



PLH: Members do help us a lot, as you see from the diagram
... you, as chairs, help us a lot with WG charters

slide 36: Starting points


PLH: new works comes from Submissions, Headlights, Community Groups, Business Groups and Workshops

slide 37: Submissions


PLH: a Member submission is a Member benefit
... a W3C Member proposes a technology and we publish it on the W3C website
... it does not overlap with existing tech of a working group

slide 38: Headlights


PLH: Annual exercise
... proposals are public
... open to Team, Members, and also to the public
... W3M investigates and prioritizes proposals
... approval takes place in July

<Ralph> Get involved in Headlights 2014 [Ian Jacobs on behalf of Jeff Jaffe, 25-Oct-2013]

slide 39: Community Groups


PLH: CGs were designed to promote innovation and foster new ideas
... low-barrier to participation
... they may contribute to the rec track
... RF licensing obligations but only for direct contributions
... the team monitors CGs to the best of its abilities
... some work has already transitioned to W3C Working Groups

slide 40: Business Groups


PLH: BGs are a W3C umbrella for INDUSTRY conversations for things that MAY have Web Technologies as part of the answer
... more staff involvement compared to CGs
... some fees to join.
... rest is same as CGs

slide 41: Workshops


PLH: W3C public events to gather the industry to get as broad a view as possible on a topic
... depending on the results, next steps will vary

slide 42: Currently upcoming Workshops


PLH: pervasive monitoring in Feb., geospatial data, web and tv, web payments, etc.

W3C Workshops

slide 43: 52 Working Groups


PLH: each WG has one or more chairs
... the maximum has been three
... it's useful to have two; they can help each other.
... one or more team contacts
... we're spread these days, so you may have a portion of a team contact
... Tools: MLs, teleconferences, wikis, etc.
... A Working Group MUST follow the W3C Process.

<Ralph> [fun fact: as of last November the median size of a W3C Working Group was 28 participants]

slide 44: Group charter


PLH: Charter: Proposed to the Advisory Committee and approved by the W3C Director
... it has a scope, defines the nature of the deliverables
... this is very important with regard to the Patent Policy
... the Process is lax on how you reach a decision within your WG
... some charters may add extra requirements on decision making
... Really, it's a tool to drive the work. Use it. Use it well.

Nigel_Megitt: Scope of charter, how is it formulated?
... engineering approach - success oriented
... other approach is define a, b, and c and assess how you've performed on a, b and c
... I came in with first approach and got shouted at
... is there a W3C preferred approach?

PLH: The answer is yes and no
... the Process tells you define your scope, your deliverables
... often, you'll find a success criteria section
... or an "out of scope" section
... commonalities don't mean it can't be done differently.

Nigel: Thanks. That's helpful.

PLH: btw, you don't have to wait till the end of your charter to propose a new one
... e.g. if you lack a deliverable
... talk to your team contact.
... we don't want to overflow the AC with updates on charters every week, of course

slide 45: W3C Recommendation Track



<chaals> [Sorry folks, I need to go and chair a meeting]

PLH: during review period, any comment you get must be addressed
... in order for your group to move to the next transition

<shepazu> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#last-call

slide 46: Patent Policy


Patent Policy FAQ

slide 47: PP diagram



PLH: FPWD triggers exclusion period
... 150 days to exclude
... every new LC after that triggers a new CfE
... 60 days to exclude
... if there is a disclosure, there is a dedicated process
... and we create a Patent Advisory Group (PAG); doesn't happen often
... Patent commitments are validated ONLY when the spec is a Recommendation
... There's a strong bond between a spec and a WG

slide 48: W3C Patent Policy for Chairs


PLH: IPP == Implementation of the Patent Policy
... through IPP you manage contributions from non-participants
... it is your role, as a chair, to identify and ask the contributor to make disclosure around the contribution
... again, exceptions are handled by Patent Advisory Groups (PAG)

slide 49: AB and TAG

slide 50: W3C Advisory Board


<inserted> AB home

PLH: elected individuals
... providing ongoing guidance to the Team on issues of strategy, management, legal matters, process, and conflict resolution
... The AB meet once a month
... They manage the evolution of the Process
... they're currently working on a new version
... of the Rec Track Process

slide 51: *PROPOSED* Rec Track


PLH: including no Proposed Recommendation transition

<Ralph> [removing named steps -- the substantive work remains]

PLH: the goal is agility and smoother transitions

<chaals> [Proposed Rec phase might return, too]

slide 52: W3C Technical Architecture Group


PLH: the TAG tackles technical issues about Web architecture
... both co-chairs are very eager to help
... if you'd like to present current work on spec, do not hesitate

<Ralph> TAG home

PLH: they will give you time during a TAG call
... they meet weekly.
... recently a new set of individuals were elected.
... held their last f2f a week or so ago.

slide 53: Role of Team Contacts and Chairs

slide 54: Team Contacts (1)


PLH: TCs participate and contribute in WGs, ensure coordination and communication, interface between chair, group Members, other WGs and the team
... they represent the W3C and the Director
... including in case of formal objections

slide 55: Team Contacts (2)


PLH: TCs help drive the group
... monitoring participation, publications, etc.
... they're here to assist you
... don't hesitate to rely on them when you have difficulty
... I see them as co-chair

slide 56: Chairs


PLH: You!
... you are the leader of the WG
... you ensure progress, keep to timelines, develop charters
... if your charter is near the end, do talk to your team contact
... you coordinate with other W3C groups
... and of course, you maintain Group Process & Organization, including maintaining a positive work environment

Role of the Group Chair

slide 57: W3C Director


PLH: in practice, the Director delegates his authority
... the slide gives an overview of the delegation
... The Director may of course still step in

slide 58: Have an issue?


PLH: Get feedback from your team contact
... if you believe this isn't enough, go talk to the Domain Lead
... and if that is still no enough, please, contact the CEO and/or the Director
... we want issues properly resolved.

slide 59: References


PLH: links to several crucial resources
... the Process
... Patent Policy
... the Chair Guidebook, etc.

[chaals returns]

PLH: a page I find very helpful: Working Groups and Activities

slide 60: Feedback wanted


PLH: This is the first training session
... The program was built after a TPAC 2013 breakfast with chairs
... any feedback is helpful
... anything missing in a session?
... some parts more useful than others in this session? do tell me

slide 61: Next sessions


Open mic

[PLH gives people time for questions and feedback]

<chaals> [I'm open to talking about what to expect from new process, if people are interested in more on that...]

Paul_Cotton: When I'm speaking publicly, I'm asked how does someone become a chair at W3C
... How do you become an editor, is another I get.

PLH: the staff is going to recommend individuals as chair to the Director
... there is no clear process
... we pick motivated individuals
... another factor is driving the group
... and time commitment.
... Editors are picked within WGs
... chairs nominate editors
... they look for time commitment and proficiency

<Ralph> [I believe a good Chair needs to be commited to a successful consensus but not to a specific design]

Jeff: Thanks for a terrific job in this module, Philippe

<chaals> [+1 to Ralph's sense of what a chair should be committed to]

Jeff: A few additional thoughts
... It's hard to find good chairs and good editors
... generally speaking, people who want to do more work are valued member of the community
... we don't get enough of people who want to become chair or editor
... our work would evolve more rapidly if we did
... please send them them me, when you get the question.
... I'll add that we've given an opportunity to people to demonstrate skill at chairing and editing within community groups
... so, demonstrating competence in smaller assignments is a way, too.

PLH: We're eager to get feedback on existing chair, and getting new chairs.

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to ask about chair monitoring...

chaals: Do we want a process or should we have one on getting specific feedback on chairs?
... is it helpful for you and for chairs?
... or do we think that would lead to more whinging?

PLH: As of today, in terms of process, what we have is go to talk your {team contact, domain lead, etc.}
... there is nothing more formalized.

chaals: but would it be useful?
... I'm asking the chairs rather than the team.

Giri_Mandyam: Great presentation
... going back to when you talked about consensus building
... did you mention vote for balancing?
... it might be a good addition

PLH: I omitted it on purpose
... as far as I know most groups do not use formal vote anymore
... then years ago, it was very common.

<chaals> [+1 to groups considering that a resort to formal votes is something they should try to avoid…]

PLH: but this is a mechanism that is available in the process.
... Depending on how little exposed your WG is, it may make your job easier
... I chose to mention instead that chair can record a decision and a formal objection and move on.

Paul: in my 15 years of chairing, I'd reply that votes are for administrative matters
... I agree with Philippe.
... We do straw polls,
... ask who can live with a decision
... but I have never used votes to make a decision in my years of chairing, except when and where are we going to meet next.

<jeff> [We also vote for the TAG and AB]

<jeff> Thanks, PLH.

<drott> Thank you plh!

PLH: thanks everyone for attending
... further feedback welcome, contact me

<drott> Merci!

<chaals> Thanks PLH!

<Sharron> thanks, very informative

PLH: I wish you the best in your chair endeavours

<kenny> thanks plh

<Vagner_W3Cbr> thanks PLH.

<paulc> THANK YOU, Philippe for a great session.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-07-14 20:14:02 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/W3C is made/PLH: W3C is made/
Succeeded: s/CEO/COO/
Succeeded: s/them/domains/
Succeeded: s/[as/[fun fact: as/
Succeeded: s/want of course/want/
Succeeded: s/Nigel_Meggitt/Nigel_Megitt/
Succeeded: s/40: AB/49: AB/
Succeeded: s/goald/goal/
Succeeded: i|PLH: elected|-> http://www.w3.org/2002/ab/ AB home
Succeeded: s/gaates/gates/
Succeeded: s/fp/fp/
Succeeded: s/fpul/pful/
Succeeded: s/PHL/PLH?/
Succeeded: s/PLH?/PLH/
Succeeded: s/nment/nments/
Succeeded: s/mom/mon/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: koalie
Inferring Scribes: koalie
Default Present: PLH, Doug_Schepers, +1.617.453.aaaa, Judy, lizadaly, Jim_Allan, paulc, wseltzer, chaals, koalie, BHill, Kenny, joshue, Shawn, +358.986.aabb, Ted, Jeff, drott, gmandyam, nigel, AWK, Jeanne, Debbie_Dahl, Andy_Coleman, wuwei, Sharron, Caroline, Jan, schuki, +1.617.575.aacc, scottp, Shadi, [IPcaller]
Present: PLH Doug_Schepers +1.617.453.aaaa Judy lizadaly Jim_Allan paulc wseltzer chaals koalie BHill Kenny joshue Shawn +358.986.aabb Ted Jeff drott gmandyam nigel AWK Jeanne Debbie_Dahl Andy_Coleman wuwei Sharron Caroline Jan schuki +1.617.575.aacc scottp Shadi [IPcaller] Dominik Röttsches Dominik_Röttsches
Got date from IRC log name: 23 Jan 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/01/23-chairing-minutes.html
People with action items: 
[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]