AB/2019 Priorities

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

Summary

Project Leads
Registries FR, DS, CMN, NR
Evergreen Standards JJ lead, DS, LW
Globalization &Inclusion JZ, Jay, JJ, Tzviya, Tink
WHATWG partnership Chris with support from Leonie and Elika
Legal Entity Eric
IDPF/ePub TS, AS and FR
New areas, new work CMN working with TS, JZ, JK (QuickApp focus)
Horizontal Review LW, NR
Team contact effectiveness CMN
Practices in OSS MC with CMN
Process 2020 JJ with DS and FR

Projects

Registries

Evergreen Standards

Develop an experimental process for Evergreen Standards, have some leading edge adopters available, and incorporate in Process 2020.

  • Focus on completing the ES model, identifying which use cases are first to adopt, and work with PSIG on patent policy.
  • Extensive discussion on the AB Wiki
  • There is now a specific proposal at Evergreen Standards and a corresponding Process CG Issue
  • Present at AC in Quebec
  • Finalize in W3C Process CG in May, June
  • Review at AB in June F2F
  • Send Process 2020 to AC in July and August
  • Finalize at TPAC in Fukuoka
    • JJ lead, DS, LW
  • Workplan
    • Acceptance
      • Presentation at AC
      • Some disagreements
        • Have tried to work with some of the skeptics by talking about use cases
        • Encouraging skeptics to weigh in on scoping of experiment
    • Change to process document
      • Version sent to Process CG before March meeting
      • Revision after March meeting feedback
      • Hope that Process CG puts into the main Process 2020 branch in May
      • Continuing updates encouraged; few recent issues
    • Use cases
      • Growing list: registries; accessibility modules; SVG2; Web IDL; WebAppSec
    • Patent policy
      • Wendy has framed the outlines of the desired policy
      • Need a workplan to complete a draft policy by August
    • AC review
      • Target to send something in August
  • June update
    • Plan to review full solution at June F2F has been delayed
      • Alternative (Everblue) proposal
      • 12 June was due to be decision meeting for way forward
      • Significant team concerns about the Everblue proposal
      • No resolution
  • August update
    • AB (July) resolution that we will develop some approach to continuous development
    • Evergreen and Everblue now explanable as two alternatives as part of a generic common approach
    • Trying to tee up AC input in WBS and in AC discussion
  • October update
    • Based on patent policy survey, TPAC AC meeting, and meeting with WGs, some Everteal version now looking most popular
    • PLH and Fantasai working on process text
    • Intent to bring process text to Process CG (next call), AB F2F (November) to get a direction for PSIG to create a final patent policy proposal

Globalization &Inclusion

There is a Being_Inclusive_and_Global wiki page, intended to collect useful concrete advice.

which is to list globalization as multi-class with multiple sub items, Set some realistic targets for increased WG participation from China and Japan and other countries to develop a strategy to achieve those targets are listed as below. (This means we are trying to merge several work in one area, but still need sub item coordinator)

  • 1. Diversity and Inclusion(tzviya and Angel)
    • One part of this is to work with the Diversity and Inclusion CG to strengthen and clarify diversity scholarships(which we need think what we do need to do given that two CGs already),recent proress is that a diversity fund selection committee proposal has been made and the CG is dicussing the proposal;
      • Recent progress: The Inclusive and Diversity CG has sent a proposal about how to set up the diversity fund selection committee, now the CG is voting for this proposal, looking optimistic to gain a group consensus.
    • PWE CG is reviewing the Ombuds training documents, continue the drafting of CEPC
    • PWE CG will proposed revised CEPC to AB and W3M in June
    • Another is the way we approach consensus-building among a broad stakeholder set including users and "middleware" developers vs simply relying on ("browser"-) implementation as the determinant factor in decisions.
    • Another is to consider the working processes we use, and whom they benefit / marginalise / suit well / ...
    • Another is to take a deep look at W3C's global deployment of staff or tangible support in meetings, visits, availability, etc.
    • Another is to consider whether the diversity reporting provides information that is useful, and whether there are improvements that should be made in terms of recruiting staff, chairs, and participants.
    • Consider W3C's recruiting methods. Are we recruiting primarily white men?
      • Maybe try to leverage the mebmers? e.g. some discount for a member if it recruits or provide significant help for recruiting members.
  • 2. i18N(??)
  • 3. Make TPAC 2019 (Japan) a success by driving efforts for inclusion and internationalization - and causing the meeting to be a hub of activity involving Japan, China, and the US West Coast (Why "West Coast", and not e.g. Oceania, SE Asia, ...?)(Jay and ?)
  • 4.Currency--(Jay and Chaals)
  • 5. Translators(Tink )

there is a draft table which has been summarized into Technical Requirements、Diversity & Inclusion、Facilitation etc, with info about owner and issue etc.

This table is proposed and drafted by Judy, and revised by Chaals. Other AB-ers please take the related project items accordingly.

Category Task Description Current Progress Owner
Diversity & Inclusion 1 Inclusive Behavior seek to identify things that can cause problems for inclusivity, things that can help increase inclusivity, and call for continued input from the community and continued effort to improve our inclusivity Suggest to close this item by transferring it to IDCG for further discussion TBD
Diversity & Inclusion 2 Diversity Scholarship Fund work with the Diversity and Inclusion CG to strengthen and clarify diversity scholarships(which we need think what we do need to do given that two CGs already) Done: TPAC2019 Diversity Fund allocation finished. New work started: TPAC2020 Diversity Fund raising just started. Suggest to continue this item as globalization topic in Priority 2020 Tink
Diversity & Inclusion 3 PWE reviewing the Ombus training documents, continue the drafting of Code of conduct updated version of W3C Code of Conduct is planned to be completed by the end of 2019. Review and approval process of this revision is planned for 2020. Suggest to continue this item as globalization topic in Priority 2020. tzviya and Angel
Facilitation & Culture 1 Languages 1) W3C documents which is important for participation should be translated into the major languages used by W3C members, such as Chinese, Japanese, French, etc. 2) use easy and clear English.do not use idioms,acronyms,humor, slang, colloquialisms which only a group of people can understand A draft of Tips for communication with non-native has been drafted by Judy. Suggest to close this item. Judy and Jay
Facilitation & Culture 2 Time Zones make the teleconfs time arrangements in the most reasonable manner in which the maxmium number of group participants should feel acceptable in progress. Survey of other SDOs. Suggest to continue this item as globalization topic in Priority 2020. Jay
Facilitation & Culture 3 Events Make TPAC 2019 (Japan) a success by driving efforts for inclusion and internationalization; explore to bring a digitial experience of un-conference portion of the plenary day and make it more accessible and in order TPAC2019 related work was done. Suggest to close this item Jay,W3C Meeting planners
Facilitation & Culture 4 F2F Meeting Running 1)make agenda item in reasonable time duration,because Long sessions in a foreign language can be very tiring; 2)More document-based and measured discussion, have the documents for discussion ready before the meeting, help the non-English people to know what will be presented AB is discussing this topic on github issue 83Suggest to close this item. TBD
Facilitation & Culture 5 F2F Meeting Location choose the location/city with reasonable cost/access, some cities are too expensive/troublesome to host meeting and travel AB is discussing this topic on github issue 70 Suggest to close this item. Chaals and Meeting Planners
Facilitation & Culture 6 Currency ensure that W3C members could pay their mebmership in USD, Euro, CNY and Yan.Explore the other currencies to which support is needed Updated proposal made, need discussion and feedback from members TBD. Max left W3C. W3C need to find a new PM to lead this topic.
Facilitation & Culture 7 Rules should have more universal rules in W3C, currently many rules in W3C are western style, e.g the voting rule. Suggest to close this item by transferring it to IDCG for further discussion TBD
Facilitation & Culture 8 Discussion Topics more topics of global common interest. new ideas for Web standards from Asia such as Web Media (Danmaku, HTTP code for Media Error) and Mini App have parked in related groups for further discussion, such as Media IG and MiniApp CG. Suggest to close this item. TBD
Tool 1 Guarantee member access to tools （Twitter, Google Docs cannot be access in certain countries.） 1）need to make sure all the memebers should have access to the working tools of W3C； 2）support the tools which is not current W3C tools but commonly used in certain regions/countries such as CJK Need AB discussion whether to continue this item in in Priority 2020 Tink
Tool 2 Translators Explore new ways to provide translation facilitation for major discussion on W3C events had some license issues for the experiment in Fukuoka. Need AB discussion whether to continue this item in in Priority 2020 Tink & Jay
Tool 3 Calendar Set up a calendar system that W3C community can use effectively suggest to close this item and delegate this item to W3C team W3C Systems team
I18N I18N collect use cases and requirements for I18N from the less represented regions, such as SEA, Africa, etc suggest to close this item TBD

Note: We should keep in mind about making W3C a more inclusive place while pushing for globalization items

Make the WHATWG partnership work.

  • MOU is now approved and public with minimal drama
  • HTML WG created but not active yet
  • Next step is to make the collaboration work in practice
    • Timetable for the first W3C CRs based on WHATWG Review Drafts?
    • Encourage early submission of issues to WHATWG that could be blockers for a Rec Track snapshot?
    • Quick personal intervention by AB and SG when either group's partisans indulge in unproductive behavior?
    • TPAC opportunities for bridge-building and issue awareness?
    • What is a good mechanism for ongoing SG - AB communication?

Legal Entity

  • Assist the W3C Steering Committee in gaining consensus for the way ahead
  • Alternatively, if the proposal put to the Steering Committee is not supported by the membership, the AB who represents the members could help explain to W3C and the Steering Committee why not, and explore structures that actually have the support of members and potential members.
  • Tasks might include:
    • Role of the Director: Explore the support among Team, members, and the outside world for different models to replace the Director, and the likely consequences (intended or not) of each proposed model.
    • Structure of the legal entity; bylaws, board structure, voting, board roles vs. W3M/AB/TAG, etc.
    • International structure and considerations
    • Plan for the current hosts, and their possible future relationship ('partners'), transition plan
    • Member relationship with the new entity, transition plan
    • How staffing is handled (directly, employed by a subsidiary, employed by an organization under contract, employed by a Partner, etc.), and transition plan
    • Building a reserve
    • Attracting/finding the invited board members
    • Working to get a proposal that has AC and broad community support
  • Resolutions and agenda have been sent to the W3C Steering Committee in advance of their 7 February meeting.
  • All (no specific lead, sub-tasks will be taken by AB members)
  • April update
    • Steering Committee support
    • No large issues raised by Membership
    • Need start-up funding
    • Uncertainty about European initiative
  • June update
    • Project manager assigned
    • Team pitched in some start-up funding from operational funds

Ensure successful inclusion of former IDPF Members

Help them understand the value of either Business Group participation or Membership and get them more active in the work. (CMN: Is this an advisory role, or outsourcing the team's member relations work?)

  • Included in this work is joint activity in topics of mutual interest such as packaging; and an appreciation of the use cases of publishing. See also diversity, important areas of work
  • Expose former IDPF members to W3C areas of interest, such as packaging, CSS, SVG, WAI and ease the path to integrating into other WGs.
  • TS: AB/Publishing event planned for 23 January 2019
  • TS working with Naomi on a meeting for new members and TPI members from Asia
  • TS working with colleagues in Publishing Activity to launch Publishing CG for incubation
    • TS and FR

August 2019 update

Instead of focusing on multiple issues, we decided to work on the most fundamental goal: Facilitate strategy development for publishing in W3C

The confusion in the publishing groups is due to the reason that the objectives of the groups are not clear. So, the priority for 2019 is to help publishing in W3C to come up with strategic direction that is appealing to the stake holders and helps in developing realistic work plans for the publishing groups.

Avneesh was made member of publishing steering committee for facilitating the strategy development. Tzviya will join the efforts soon after the maternity leave.

The first publishing strategy meeting was held on July 23 in which broad set of expectations were identified. The next stage is at level of publishing groups, the chairs will collect the expectations of the stake holders.

November 2019 Update

Moving forward strategy development for publishing, EPUB 3 CG came up with the first draft of EPUB3 road map and charter.

Draft 1 of the charter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CTwQIhmsyXh0tpS6RLmLLeGDkO5JKHV1FdaXoh3CdXI/edit?usp=sharing

Draft 1 of roadmap for EPUB 3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mAqdj2HTN7p8cgncToA7yRCKmz5trLTZ4ATI7trl7KM/edit?usp=sharing

New work areas

see AB/2019_-_New_Work

W3C is at its strongest when it is relevant to new, emerging, growing topics.

What role should the AB take in

  • identifying topics
  • getting members involved
  • reaching out to non-Members.

How do member proposals get into the strategy funnel, or moved along?

What is strategy doing to move this forward, or communicate to the interested parties what the next steps should be?

Some example cases:

Distributed Identities
This has been added to the Strategy Funnel
Mini App / QuickApp
The May 2019 AC meeting had a presentation of the ongoing lite apps practices in Asia, especially in China.
There is a need to collect use cases and requirements for lite app standardization, a possible road map guidance in W3C. By far, Alibaba, Baidu and Huawei are working on the Mini App work. Xiaomo recently shows interest to join as well. How much of this is taking place in the Chinese Interest Group?
MiniApps on Strategy Funnel
EPUB development


What else should be done?

Structured discussion / information gathering with people involved in the example cases we have listed, and some others that have succeeded or not succeeded.

/2019-04 progress: in April AC meeting, panel discussion， Judy Zhu from Alibaba, Jay from xiaomi, angel from Alibaba introduced the chinese IG progress, and also the miniapp, quickapp etc chaired by CMN. the next step is english version is in progress and also will work through chinese IG and also other related WGs possiblely. for the detail way forward, a new wg or sth else, it still needs further discussion.

/2019-06 progress: a Mini App standardization white paper is being developed. Alibaba and Chinese IG is trying to prepare this and possibly deliver to the TPAC as their best.

/2019-08 progress: : 1）Chinese Web IG is making some progress. 2) there will be breakout session in the sept tpac meeting.

/2019-09 progress: Talked to DID WG chairs/members about taking over an incubator repo:

  • IPR questions
  • shutting down careful analysis of issues skimped before
  • forking possibility if there are two parallel repos
  • People who contributed not being acknowledged
  • work to manually copy open issues/PRs
  • CG contributors excluded from ongoing work

Horizontal Review redesign

Horizontal Review (HR) is essential to the W3C's mission to lead the web to its full potential. For it to continue succeeding, it needs to evolve and adapt to the modern web platform. This AB priority will look at the horizontal review process; gather feedback and requirements from stakeholders including the horizontal review WG/IG, WG Chairs, and specification Editors); consider different specification models (see the Evergreen Standards priority task); and put together recommendations for ensuring that horizontal review continues to fulfill its intended purpose.

Feedback was gathered from chairs, team contacts, and editors, from the following groups:

  • Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group
  • Cascading Style Sheets Working Group
  • Internationalisation Working Group
  • Privacy Interest Group
  • Publishing Working Group
  • Security Interest Group
  • Technical Architecture Group
  • Timed Text Working Group
  • Verifiable Claims Working Group
  • Web Payments Working Group

The feedback distilled into two themes:

  • Uncertaintys: Whether HR is required or encouraged; knowing if something is an HR issue or not; when and how it is requested; how long it takes; what is returned; responding to issues; resolving disputes; inconsistent processes.
  • Challenges: Not enough people; it takes time; lack of specification subject matter knowledge; tracking specification progress; few clear HR triggers; returning feedback in appropriate forms; different types of HR given greater or lesser priority; understanding and completing checklists; attending teleconferences; finding the right group(s).

Several clear recommendations emerged from the feedback:

  • Make HR a requirement, and properly codify this in the W3C process.
  • Create an HR process that describes the expected timing and frequency of HR.
  • Create a consistent set of simple checklists (possibly in partnership with the TAG), for use by editors before requesting HR.
  • Harmonise the location of HR groups, and the mechanisms for requesting HR.
  • Produce an explainer for all specifications, and human readable change logs that document the differences between editions (PR logs do not qualify).
  • use Github tooling for requesting ad hoc HR and monitoring issues, update Respec to treat all forms of HR equally, and put in place tooling to help with monitoring the state of HR across all specifications.
  • Encourage both formal and informal conversations at TPAC.

There were also some creative suggestions:

  • Appoint a multi-disciplinary review board (In the style of IETF's Area Directors).
  • Appoint named HR "champions" for each specification.

Based on discussions in | issue #130 on the W3 Process, there is now a proposed amendment to the Wide and Horizontal Review process.

Team contact effectiveness and chair satisfaction with support.

Survey chairs, Team Contacts, and AC about satisfaction and areas for improvement. This should be anonymous, and independent of performance reviews and the like, with no record made available of who said what. Explore redesigning the way that Project Management assigns Team Contacts.

The wiki now has a proposal with draft questions.

Explicitly consider not having a fractional Team Contact appointment of less than 1/2 day per week spent directly on working group tasks, and clarify how that relates to a reported FTE.

This item is led by chaals

Standards based on Open Source projects

Standards are increasingly produced as a byproduct of collaboration on code, and it will be increasingly common to have only one implementation of a standard; How can such a standard get to Recommendation?

This was discussed in https://github.com/w3c/AB/issues/62 and there was rough consensus that the Process does NOT need to be updated at this time to better accommodate OSS-driven specs.

  • We need to get more experience with charters that define requirements about supporters / opponents for a proposal before putting such requirements in the Process
  • We can stick with charter language and guidance to chairs for now to ensure that architectural objections are not ignored.
  • It would be premature (at best) to try to codify in the Process the Director's judgment calls on whether a single OSS implementation satisfies the various criteria about independent implementations

There was no resolution to the question of whether OSS polyfills should "count" as implementations, but there has not been a real-world issue around this, so it's not a priority.

Previous comments: CMN: w3process#32 is relevant to this question. In general, there is not a **requirement** for multiple implementations, if multiple projects have adopted a given codebase.

OSS communities are often driven by a governance model that empowers the technical experts who make the most contributions; How does that relate to W3C's consensus process?

CMN: W3C's consensus process empowers experts who make the most contribution. The question is how disagreements are resolved. Commercially led OSS projects (like the major open source browser engines) are generally run like the company that "owns" the project, some projects explicitly promote forking, many projects seek a consensus of the community of contributors and users . W3C's consensus process is most loosely aligned to the last model, although it can also be seen as providing a mechanism for forks (see e.g. Webkit, blink, kHTML, and many browsers which are forked from the "owners" of those engine projects like Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, UCBrowser, Yandex, etc)

MC with CMN

Ensure that Process 2020 focuses on big issues

possibly by changing our approach to process development.

  • One approach that the AB might choose is the following: (a) identify early in the year what topics are important; (b) introduce sufficient AB resource into those topics so that we can get consensus solutions by early 2019; (c) push back on wasting time by working on less important issues.
    • An alternative approach that might be more grounded in how reality works is to assume that what people actually work on is what is important to them, and be explicit that this is how we measure importance.
    • JJ with DS and FR
  • Significant attention required on Evergreen
  • Target to get something to AC by August
  • May update: To increase bandwidth, the Process CG is now meeting twice a month.
  • August update: Process CG decided to drive the timing for Process 2020 around the readiness of Ever* (and Registries)
Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2019_Priorities&oldid=115966"