[ig/exploration] Exploration Group

[plehegar]

Evaluation

A core part of our Strategic work is the evaluation of how proposed work serves the Web. In the "Evaluation" phase at the end of the funnel, we make the case whether work is ready to proceed to Chartering of a Recommendation-track deliverable. At that point, we need to identify:

• Will this work help to lead the web to its full potential?

https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/2024/ig-exploration.html

See also https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/207

• Is the work Rec-track ready?
  Not Rec-track

• Do we have the ecosystem of participants needed to make the work successful?

unclear

• users, developers, implementers; industry sectors
• from that we can dig into
  • who specifically is involved? interested, opposed?
  • what tools and frameworks do they use?

Will it add value?

• something good for web users. what are the alternatives?

continue as-is, with insufficient communication around the strategy work.

• have "horizontal" (a11y, i18n, security, privacy) issues been considered and identified?

N/A

Will we be able to make it succeed?

unclear

• right participants interested. What does the ecosystem look like?

Special considerations?

• risk factors
• incentives
• openness, decentralization

Procedural

Next step is the breakout at the upcoming AC meeting

[plehegar]

@w3c/w3c-group-7756-members supported moving forward with the proposal on April 11.

[plehegar]

We still need to find proposed chairs...

Chairs: plh, <someone from the Membership>

[plehegar]

Should invited experts gain Member-access for this Group ?

[himorin]

From i18n, we would like to ask adding a new item into a list in Scope, which mentions about horizontal activities, like

Work with W3C Members and the W3C Team to evaluate the Web architecture, security, privacy, accessibility, and internationalization impacts of potential work areas.

Also hope to check success criteria and coordination part near future.

[ruoxiran]

+1 from APA.

From i18n, we would like to ask adding a new item into a list in Scope, which mentions about horizontal activities, like

Work with W3C Members and the W3C Team to evaluate the Web architecture, security, privacy, accessibility, and internationalization impacts of potential work areas.

Also hope to check success criteria and coordination part near future.

[plehegar]

See also issues.

[simoneonofri]

No comments for security

[plehegar]

The Strategy team discussed this charter and remains skeptical about it:

1. We like the attempt at improving the technical strategy communication with the Members
2. However, it's not clear to us that this IG is going to be successful. We are already struggling to get progress/work in existing IGs that have more specific focus, such as the Media and Entertainment IG or the Web and Networks IG.
3. At the minimum, the charter should be clarified that it's not replacing the current work of the W3C Strategy team
4. the Strategy Lead should not be one of the co-chairs but a participant
5. All of the topics mentioned in scope could be brought to the existing AB-led sessions by the Strategy team and the members. The Strategy team should keep improving its communication during those sessions.

[fantasai]

Hi plh,

• Wrt 1 & 2, as long as there's interest in trying, I think it makes sense to try. Not every effort needs to be guaranteed to succeed for it to be worth trying!
• Wrt 3, I believe the intention is to augment the work of the strategy team and improve collaboration between the Team and the Membership in this area. It's hard to see what the problem with the charter is here, you'll need to be more specific about what phrasing is objectionable.
• What's the motivation for not co-chairing the group? Is it lack of time, or perception of conflicts, or...?
• These are not mutually exclusive. The AB-led sessions are very open-ended, both in terms of topics and participation; it's good for getting vague general feedback, but not really for focused effort on anything, which this IG proposal enables.

[michaelchampion]

We are already struggling to get progress/work in existing IGs that have more specific focus, such as the Media and Entertainment IG or the Web and Networks IG.

That's a very interesting bit of information. As I understood from following discussion of this proposal in the AB repo, the original proposal for a CG morphed into a proposal for an IG for various reasons, especially the difference between the CG and IG IPR policies. If the AB had been aware that existing IGs are "struggling", that might have led to a different AB suggestion for how to proceed with @dennis-dingwei 's initiative.

All of the topics mentioned in scope could be brought to the existing AB-led sessions

As I recall, the idea for this CG or IG came out of AB-led sessions; a number of participants wished that W3C had some mechanism to analyze industry trends (such as the excitement a few years ago about blockchains / "web3" and the current excitement about generative AI) and report on them to members trying understand them and their likely impact on the web. That's the problem this proposal is trying to address, it would be helpful if the Strategy Team had more concrete advice than to simply have unstructured discussion in the monthly AB-led meetings.

The Team itself could lead that kind of analysis, discussion, and reporting, but has not done so in the past, or at least since TimBL started to disengage 10-15 years ago. I suppose the AB should now re-consider the underlying problem, assess what W3C could potentially do (defer to the Strategy Team ... form a CG to incubate the work, with a tightly scoped charter that might not scare the corporate lawyers?... double down on the IG proposal ?... or try to fix the Process / IPR issues that constrain CGs trying to do something other than spec incubation.

[chrisn]

As a chair of one of those IGs, I understand the concern (happy do discuss separately, if there's interest). But I don't think the CG / IG distinction is a large factor in whether this particular group will be successful. Like any IG it needs engagement from the community. I agree mostly with @fantasai's points - it's worth trying and it should complement the Team's own work, but I don't think someone from the Team necessarily needs to chair it, e.g., if people in the AB are willing.

[plehegar]

• Wrt 1 & 2, as long as there's interest in trying, I think it makes sense to try. Not every effort needs to be guaranteed to succeed for it to be worth trying!

Wrt 1 & 2, as long as there's interest in trying, I think it makes sense to try. Not every effort needs to be guaranteed to succeed for it to be worth trying!

I do believe there is interest if we manage to find the right Chairs for this Group.

• Wrt 3, I believe the intention is to augment the work of the strategy team and improve collaboration between the Team and the Membership in this area. It's hard to see what the problem with the charter is here, you'll need to be more specific about what phrasing is objectionable.

I concur with the intention but also had to explain the intention to the Strategy team. It's probably a simple fix in the 'Motivation and Background' to clarify this intention.

• What's the motivation for not co-chairing the group? Is it lack of time, or perception of conflicts, or...?

Lack of time and enabling the Strategy lead to participate freely in the IG without needing to wear a Chair hat.

• These are not mutually exclusive. The AB-led sessions are very open-ended, both in terms of topics and participation; it's good for getting vague general feedback, but not really for focused effort on anything, which this IG proposal enables.

Understood.

Fyi, I asked @wareid to add this on the agenda of the upcoming AB-led sessions.