AB/2016 Priorities

From W3C Wiki
< AB
These are past priorities. For the current AB Priorities see AB/Priorities

Security strategy

participants : VG, T, JZ, DS

Objective : develop the security awareness and activity in W3C

See: AB 2016 Priorities: Security page for more.

2017-02 AB f2f final report

Virginie: We sent requests to the TAG and Web Sec IG to better understand what would be helpful
... to better support security
... we got 2 types of answers
... 1) let WGs be autonomous in how they perform security work
... give them the right security tools (the questionnaire is one)
... 2) we need a reference pool of experts when there is no skills in WGs


finish proposal to change chartering process when spec drafts are to be carried into a new charter; is before PSIG and under consideration for implications of integration by the Process CG
Maintenance questions moved to Maintenance item (all? like, fixing an old spec. produced by a different population?)
ease-of-chartering: rather than leaving re-chartering a miserable exercise and doing it less accurately and often, we'd prefer to make it easy to re-charter and have charters that are up to date and accurate; need data on why re-chartering is miserable (sometimes?)

2017-02 AB f2f final report

chaals: we achieved our initial goal for the last couple of years
... there are loose ends
... ongoing questions: "should you be able to make commitments to specific pieces of work?"
... it's rising again due to practical needs
... if someone is interested, that could be added to next year's priorities

Best practices for rec track

  • Best Practices for incubation and transition to rec track

Participants : MC (lead), JJ, TÇ, JZ, JK, CW

The draft Best Practices document is at https://github.com/w3c/standards-track/blob/master/bp.md

  • Please file feedback/issues at the Issues for that repo!

2017-02 AB f2f final report

Mike: yesterday's discussion

Role of Director

Immediately, present proposals for Process Revision to the AC (Lisbon?)

The AB as a whole is reviewing the role of the Director, to ensure it is up to date with the way we work and to consider what might happen and what to do if we need to transition to a new Director one day.

2017-02 AB f2f final report

David: clean up required to ensure it is up to date with the way we work and to consider what might happen and what to do if we need to transition to a new Director one day.
... I'd like to resurrect that work
... I don't think it's major


Leads: TÇ, MC

Evidence of maintenance problem

"and in fact more than a third of web standards aren’t implemented by any of the most popular browsers"

Specifications that browsers have neglected / ignored / left behind per:

Looking ahead: Microsoft Edge for developers in 2016: Building for the future of the web


Filter TR for Obsolescence

Modest proposal for a coarse "shaking of the tree" to find out what can/should be obsoleted and what may just need some maintenance.

  • On the TR page, what is obsolete and what is not?
  • If in doubt, shall we propose obsoleting and see who speaks up against that?
  • If someone speaks up, say thank you, we need you to help by being responsible for maintenance.
  • If they refuse to do maintenance, or pretend there isn't any, make it clear that any actually in-use spec has bugs that are being discovered and need fixing.
    • Is PNG an exception to this?

Specifications to obsolete

Date, specification to obsolete as part of maintenance, and reason for doing so (hyperlinked to further discussion / minutes)

Anyone can propose obsoleting a specification, per the process, and the W3C Director (and team) decides to take action appropriately.

The AB highly recommends that any proposal to obsolete (or rescind) a specification be accompanied with reason(s) why.

Taxonomy Of Specs

We have determined three distinct clusters of W3C specifications that likely merit different approaches to maintenance.

Latest At W3C

The latest version of the specification is at W3C.

There is no work happening on it anywhere else.


  • CSS (various CSS specifications)
  • ...

Abandoned At W3C and External Maintenance

There is an (effectively) abandoned version of a specification at W3C.

There is an external group is actively maintaining it.


  • URL

Iteration at W3C and External Maintenance

There is some iteration of the specification happening at W3C.

There is also an external group maintaining the specification separately.


  • HTML (WPWG actively working on HTML 5.x, WHATWG actively maintaining HTML)
  • ...

Specifications That May Need Maintenance

Specifications that may need maintenance as identified by various AB members:

  • PNG
  • CSS Speech
  • File System API
  • ...

2017-02 AB f2f final report

[sense of the room is that much maintenance accomplished such as Obsolescence in Process 2017, great progress on Rec Track Readiness document happened, more is needed.]
  • The AB identified as a 2017 priority project Maintenance

Modern Tools

participants : VG, JK That topic relates to the new framework the systeam is developing to rpovide new tools to the W3C community. It covers :

2017-02 AB f2f final report

Jay: [and virginie] no progress
Virginie: What is left to do?
... API, designed by systeam
... we might tried to see if it's used by different WGs
Jeff: we moved to github
... echidna
... we got a lot done
Virginie: Yes, true
... I wonder if the AB believes there is more to do
  • The AB identified as a 2017 priority project Tooling


AB has requested the Team to propose a switch to STV voting, using a system they are confident in maintaining.
A proposal will be needed for a Process change

2017-02 AB f2f final report

Jeff: Voting
... done
Jeff: we're about to get an election using the STV mechanism

Funding transparency

Funding transparency and how to deploy team resources

participants : CW (lead), VG, CMN

2017-02 AB f2f final report

Chris: we didn't do a whole lot in 2016

Be more global

The need to do even more to help in making our community fully global. See separate wiki.

Ongoing work

2017-02 AB f2f final report

JudyZ: we made some progress last year
chaals: there is more to do
Jay: also, how should the AB help at the AC meeting in Beijing
JudyZ: and TPAC maybe
Jeff: speakers guidelines is helpful
... cf. https://www.w3.org/Member/Meeting/2017ac/April/speakers-guidelines.html
JudyZ: I heard good feedback on AB at the TPAC in Lisbon
... including the AB moderating
Jeff: I have not figured out yet moderators
... in Lisbon we have good moderators but they didn't know exactly what do to
... clumsy role
David: we should do it again with some guidelines
<dsinger> offers (possibly out of sequence here in the minutes) notes for moderators: enforce the speaking guidelines, make sure people are comprehensible to non-english speakers, interrupt and ask them to expand acronyms etc. as needed, manage the speaker queue, integrate the IRC and standing-at-the-mike queues, manage questions, cut off pontificators masquerading as questions, monitor AC-chat and notice when people say they are lost/can’t-follow etc....
<tantek> +1 to dsinger - I think it's worth emphasizing moderation guidance and mentorship like that
<dsinger> more for moderators: make sure panel sessions have questions from the audience. solicit them in IRC and pick questions to feed to the panel.

Return to AB wiki home page.