[KI-LC] Teleconference Reminder

[J. Trent Adams]

Bob -

Speaking only to the general comment about estimated time frames, I like
them in the charter (even if only as wild guesses).  The rationale is
that at least there's some touch-point that's put on the books so the LC
can evaluate the progress against their charter.

I know that the LC could close a WG any time it wants (given reason, of
course), but the time frame sets a "review date" that helps to keep
ineffective groups from slipping through the cracks.  If I remember
correctly, this is also how the W3C works.

My $0.02,
Trent


Bob Pinheiro wrote:
> Eve Maler wrote:
>> - The mention of the intent to write technical specs is buried a
>> bit.  The intro makes it sound like only requirements and marketing
>> collateral will be produced, but then technical specs are mentioned
>> later and the lifetime is set to five years, which suggests a
>> long-term technical effort vs. just, say, publishing a minor revision
>> of the existing requirements doc.
>>
>> - In fact, five years just seems like a really long time no matter
>> what; is it reasonable to set a shorter timeframe for a clearer set
>> of outputs?  Even wholly new work should have some kind of output in
>> 24 months or less.  And people will be making decisions to get
>> involved based on the resource cost over time...
> My reading of the charter is that the WG intends to produce a set of
> specifications within one year (Sec 4).  Whether this or any other WG
> should have a lifetime of 5 years, especially since the work that is
> being proposed is envisioned to be completed within one year, might be
> a good topic for discussion.  I do believe that the lifetime of any WG
> should extend for some period beyond the time envisioned to complete
> the proposed deliverables.  Even if the deliverable schedule is
> maintained, there is always the possibility that follow-on work will
> materialize, or that additional time will be needed to socialize the
> deliverables and react to questions or other concerns that may arise. 
> So I'd propose letting each WG determine for itself the period of time
> it should exist, maybe with checks along the way to make sure the WG
> is still active in some way, and hasn't simply become inactive.
>
> This brings up a larger question: how will proposers determine the
> "projected completion dates" for the deliverables of their WG?  The
> Operating Procedures requires that the charters include projected
> completion dates, but these would seem to depend on the resources
> available to do the work.   If a small group of proposers are
> passionate about the work and are willing to commit themselves to
> producing the deliverables in some time frame no matter what, that's
> one possibility.   But if they need to recruit a larger team of
> volunteers to get the work done, that would seem to make any projected
> timeframe less reliable.  And if outside consultants are needed who
> must be paid, then the budgeting process comes into play and the
> timeline would seem even less  reliable.  So I would question whether
> it is possible to come up with meaningful projected completion dates
> for deliverables at the time when the charters are approved, unless
> possibly the WG already has a team in place that has committed to
> doing the work within the projected timeframe.   [Yes, I understand
> that "best guesses" are allowed, but are they truly meaningful?]
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org

-- 
J. Trent Adams
=jtrentadams

Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
Internet Society
http://www.isoc.org

e) adams at isoc.org
o) 703-439-2149