Update on Project to Enhance Community Groups

DKA: this all sounds great, very exciting
… making WG easier to join for contributor sounds particularly exciting
… speaking as a CG chair, for non browser specs - will that apply to them

<Ian> DKA: Any work on non-browser specs?

<Ian> Dom: We showed demos that talk about browser APIs, but the goal is to cover non-browser APIs as well

<Ian> ...traction will be measured differently in different contexts

<Ian> ...we'll work with groups on the right way to collect signals and define traction for that community

<Ian> ...it's clear to both Ian and me that a big value of the program is to have a variety of innovation.

<Ian> ...we prototyped based on low-hanging fruit but should work for all groups

bkardell: I've often seen CGs confused or frustrated, thinking they're doing all the right things only to find out that this won't fly through wide review or get adoption in implementation

<tantek> +1 bkardell

<tzviya> +1 to horizontal discussion with CGs

<wendyreid> +1 bkardell

bkardell: any thoughts of we could do that better? e.g. a monthly call for early insights; not formal wide reviews as we get in the formal process

Ian: great suggestion, maybe through a combination of training and socialization
… surfacing these questions earlier is one thing we had identified

<tantek> rather than "training", curious if there are "self-service" docs/guides for things like common success paths and failure modes for CGs

Ian: maybe we can build agendas based on our monitoring tools

Elf: chair of Solid CG; is there still something related to the modern tooling efforts and if so where?

<fantasai> tantek, probably having both would be good ; some people are more comfortable in docs, and some people with in-person interaction.

Elf: one of the tools I would imagine would be focus on use cases and requirements
… CGs can be focused more on problems or on more solutions
… in the Social Web WG, we used the "Social Web Acid Test" to evaluate possible solutions
… a CG-wide repo of use cases and requirements would allow to compare how different solutions meet different requirements, possibly across CGs

tess: re lower barriers to transition, the second point was how to ease IPR commitments flow to other SDOs
… that will be brought to PSIG for discussion
… I would suggest also bringing the first point (continued participation) to PSIG

<elf-pavlik> reference https://w3c.github.io/modern-tooling/

tess: the AB has had recent turnover - it may be useful to have another conversation with the AB in that context

<tantek> +1 tess

Ian: could we get the AB work as individual in the council?

Tess: maybe, worth discussing with the AB

Ian: re PSIG, the IPR considerations are very important - we expect to get organizational commitments from these continued contributors

<DKA> Yes potentially that sounds like a good idea for AB members to join the CG council. Let's be clear about it and call it the CG council in future communications.

<hdv> +1 DKA

<fantasai> +1 DKA

Ian: re due structures/business models, we've chatted with the Membership task force - we're conducting this as an experiment as input to more formal conversations

<Zakim> Steven, you wanted to ask about activities

<DKA> We're discussing how the AB can help to support incubation in tomorrow's AB call (as it's one of out key priorities for this year) so I'm sure we'll discuss tomorrow.

Steven: re transitioning to standardization, a regular question is what contact / group should we target

<BC> exit

Ian: the expectations is that Dom and I would serve as primary points of contacts to dispatch to the right next steps

Anssi: have you also considered lowering barriers from transitioning WG to CG? if it were well defined how to go back to incubation, it could benefit both directions

<bkardell> are there examples of things that went that way?

<Ian> Dom: You make a good point.

Dom: we haven't considered it really

<bkardell> oh I guess xslt for example?

<elf-pavlik> I believe both Social WG and LDP WG after conclusion formed CGs

Dom: there is a lot of know how in the commnunity but not documentation about success or failure paths
… maybe ensuring we check the right boxes and have also simple path back, that feels worth exploring

Ian: Anssi, please raise this as an issue?

anssik: will do
… the idea is to make it easy for WGs
… if you can explain it's a two-way street
… it may be helpful for people

<Ian> https://github.com/w3c/cg-council/issues

Ian: It would be great to document use-cases you have in mind

<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to comment on some concerns wrt using the IE program for this purpose

fantasai: +1 tess re taking licensing experiment to PSIG for review

<cwilso> +1000; I've been telling Dom and Ian that PSIG is the next step here for a while

fantasai: I am concerned that the way to integrate the company level commitment will work correctly with the patent policy

<Ian> (This is the WG patent policy)

fantasai: I don't want to create a 3rd patent regime

<tantek> +1 fantasai, PSIG for handling IP issues brought up in these discussions

fantasai: on the business side, re-using the invited expert program - what we really need is a concept for a WG member distinct from the traditional participation model

Ian: re-using IE program is a mean to experiment, isn't meant as the final implementation

<DKA> 62

<koalie> 71 at the max

Tantek: re regular meeting, there is enough interest to continue these conversations more regularly

– DRAFT –
Update on Project to Enhance Community Groups

03 September 2025

Attendees

Meeting minutes