CG Program Enhancements

Background

CG program launched in August 2011
500+ groups started over time, currently 140 active groups
Nearly 12,000 participants:
- 20% from 262 Members
- 30% from 3600 non-Member organizations
- 50% as individuals
Light-touch management and oversight by Ian & Dom

Light-touch management includes

Review proposed groups from people outside Team, Membership
Monitor groups somewhat; prune inactive groups
Answer questions
Propose program enhancements based on real-world experience

CGs are a critical entry point to web standardization

18 Working Groups chartered from CG proposals (4 more pending)
100+ W3C specifications/features incubated in CGs => 19 Recs
6 CGs maintain W3C Recommendations
Numerous “twinned” WG/CGs
25+ proposals to WHATWG, 5+ to schema.org. Also: IETF, Ecma
Allows scalable exploration of W3C/Web-adjacent topics (e.g. Design Tokens, non-browser JS runtimes, WebViews, …)

Working Groups chartered from CG proposals

Browsers: WebAssembly, WebGPU, Web Machine Learning, Immersive Web, …
Data: Verifiable Credentials, DID, RDF-star, JSON-LD, …
Other: MiniApps, Social Web, Distributed Tracing

Twinned CGs/WGs

web assembly, immersive web, solid, machine learning, second screen, etc.

About this Session

Overall goal: greater alignment of the CG program with W3C mission.
Focus: enhancements to address a small number of situations of concern for CGs that publish Specifications.
- As CG Specifications gain traction on the way to standardization, the enhancements should increase their alignment with the W3C mission.
Today: discuss situations of concern and share initial ideas.

Assumptions

Remain easy to propose a CG and no monetary cost to participate.
Early incubation process should remain lightweight.
CGs will continue to incubate specs (not just, for example, use cases).
CG specs will not benefit from all the guarantees associated with the W3C standardization process.
Our focus is revisions to the CG program, not major changes to the W3C Process
Most other characteristics of the CG program will remain the same.

#1: Lack of alignment of CG Specs with traction with W3C mission

The Rec Track is the recognized path for attaching guarantees to a W3C spec.
We observe: risks may arise if a CG Spec gains “too much traction” and is delayed becoming a standard with guarantees.
We want: to improve our handling of CG Specifications with traction.

Cue to "With great traction come great responsibilities"

We want to encourage the incubation of new and diverse ideas to enrich the Web.

An important value proposition of W3C to the Web community is to provide a systematic, fair, and effective approach to the development of Specifications with mission-aligned guarantees. Especially in light of W3C’s new charitable status, it is more important than ever to improve our handling of CG Specifications with traction.

Note: We are also planning to improve the program to reduce the potential for confusion for specifications that don't gain traction and are essentially abandoned.

Examples of guarantees

Mission alignment
IPR properties
Quality controls (e.g., wide review)
Implementation experience
Due process (consensus-based decisions, all participants have a voice, etc.)
Broad stakeholder awareness and involvement

#2: Obstacles to participation for contributing non-Members

The Rec Track is the recognized path for attaching guarantees to a W3C spec.
We observe: in discussions about transition to WG, frequent topic is the sudden friction increase of W3C Membership for non-Member contributors.
We want: continued participation in a Working Group by non-Members who have made significant contributions to a CG Specification.

#3: CG Program may not be up-to-speed

The CG Program was designed in 2010 to be lightweight.
We observe:
- Adjustments are needed based on experience and use cases
- The ecosystem of standardization is evolving
- W3C overall is solidifying its practices

#3: CG Program may not be up-to-speed (cont)

We want:
- guarantees associated with CG Specifications with traction to be more robust and easier to recognize
- adequate support for chairs and participants
- the program to be inclusive and conducive to mission-aligned productivity

Primary initial ideas to address concerns

Increase guarantees as traction increases
Reduce friction to WG transition
Set “move up or move out” expectation
Support chairs and participants

Increase guarantees as traction increases: Create a safe and inclusive collaborative space for technology exploration, where guarantees increase progressively as a specification gains traction.
Reduce friction to WG transition: Encourage and facilitate the smooth transition of specifications that have demonstrated value and mission alignment to the standards track.
Set “move up or move out” expectation: Work more actively to ensure CG Specifications with traction undergo standardization (at W3C or elsewhere), or stop being developed in a CG.
Support chairs and participants: Help groups succeed with improved training and supporting materials.

Signals of early traction

Announcements of intent to prototype, implement, ship
References from W3C Rec-track deliverables
References by other SDOs
Mentions by regulators
Expressions of interest from relevant stakeholders beyond the CG
Pilots
There are multiple contributors to a specification

Signals of significant traction

Automated detection of shipping features
One implementation and significant adoption
Two or more implementations or announcements of intent

Discussion

Ideas for addressing the situations of concern:
- Lack of alignment of CG Specs with traction with W3C mission
- Obstacles to participation for contributing non-Members
- CG Program may not be up-to-speed
Do you know of other situations of concern with CG Specifications?
We will work on the enhancements in the CG Council and invite interested parties to join us there.

Appendix: Examples

Spec	Signals	Target	Action
Storage Access	3 impl	WHATWG	Resolve issues first
WASM Exception	3 impl	WASM WG	Staff support
Speech API (synthesis)	3 impl	N/A	Chat on move up/move out
Web Share Target	1 impl, not updated in a year	WebApps WG (?)	Chat on move up/move out
File Handling	0 impl, 5 years old	N/A	Mark as discontinued?