w3process
w3process copied to clipboard
w3c
What's the point of what the Process has to say about Liasons
The first two paragraphs and the last paragraph of Section 9 speak about Liaisons.
Given that Liaisons are defined to cover a broad range of possible relationships with other organizations, and that no particular kind of relationship with other organizations has to be called Liaisons, it's not clear to me that "All liaisons must be coordinated by the Team" (which is the only normative statement) has any teeth.
I suspect we could delete these three paragraphs from the Process and not notice that anything has changed. Given the complains about the process being too long, maybe we should indeed remove them.
A page like https://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison does a better job of explaing what Liasons are, which one currently exist, and how to set up new ones. It probably would benefit from more visibility on the W3C website, but the w3c website redesign is probably a better means of surfacing it than advertising it in the Process.
@frivoal I agree that we should simplify Section 9. The first two and last paragraph can probably be collapsed into one paragraph - the current second paragraph is the one with normative importance.
W3C is accustomed to working in an informal fashion which might hide the benefit of the second paragraph, but we work with a vast array of other organizations. For those who are more formal, the linkage in the process is significant.
We should also explore whether we need an entire section on Liaisons, or whether this better fits (e.g.) as a part of 2.2.
Seems like a sensible area to look at. I believe W3C has an agreement with ISO/IEC about the standing of Recs as international standards. We should check that changing or removing the liaisons section has no impact on that agreement.
Um, W3C isn't very liaison oriented, true, but they mean a lot to other organizations and maybe therefore to us.
A liaison relationship usually gives reciprocal rights to join groups and attend meetings, outside normal membership rules. It also enables each organization to provide documents (I know, W3C is not contribution-document-based in its workflow) into the other group.
So, you'll have people attending meetings not as an IE, or as a member rep., but as a liaison rep. from a liaison organization; and we could (and probably should in some cases) appoint a liaison rep. the other way, someone who can attend their meetings on behalf of the W3C.
@dwsinger no question that Liaisons are important. What I'm questioning is the existing text about them: seems a lot of words with very limited normative effects.
Took a first stab at the suggestion from @jeffjaffe in https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/433. For now, I've only collapsed/move the part about Liaisons themselves, leaving the text on MoUs unchanged. Maybe we can reduce that as well.
A page like https://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison does a better job of explaing what Liasons are, which one currently exist, and how to set up new ones. It probably would benefit from more visibility on the W3C website, but the w3c website redesign is probably a better means of surfacing it than advertising it in the Process.
The website has been redesigned, and I think that the page now does indeed do a better job of explaining Liaisons than the Process does.
I remain of the opinion that while Liaisons are a good thing, what the Process has to say about them does not achieve anything.
Here is everything it has on the topic :
W3C uses the term liaison to refer to coordination of activities with a variety of organizations, through a number of mechanisms ranging from very informal (e.g., an individual from another organization participates in a W3C Working Group, or just follows its work) to mutual membership, to even more formal agreements. Liaisons are not meant to substitute for W3C membership.
All liaisons must be coordinated by the Team due to requirements for public communication; patent, copyright, and other IPR policies; confidentiality agreements; and mutual membership agreements.
[…] Information about W3C liaisons with other organizations [LIAISON] and the guidelines W3C follows when creating a liaison is available on the Web.
I struggle to see anything that:
- is enabled by this text, which we couldn't otherwise do
- is required by this text, which we would otherwise be free to skip
The middle paragraph comes closest, except that the lack of a definition for Liaisons makes it toothless.
My inclination would be to:
- Remove these 3 paragraphs from the Process
- Let https://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison be our main documentation about Liaisons
I would prefer to define liaison relationship as something which gives and grants rights, has a process for establishing, and so on. Have a look at ISO/IEC liaisons; there are rules about how they are set up, and what they grant and get. (We don't need the categories at W3C.) Typically, some sort of agreement of the WG, AC, and/or management would be needed; ability to work in and contribute to a WG; rules about how the patent policy applies; the right to attend and contribute to the reciprocal WG in the liaising organization, and so on.
I don't think this should be removed. At a minimum we need to describe how they're coordinated, the need for named contacts in each organisation, relevant W3C groups, listing in the Coordination section of charters, and the points David mentions.
Agree with keeping this section and expanding it. On the website liaison page, there aren't links to the actual documents that describe the liaison and associated work items. What also seems to be missing is a description of the process one must follow in order to create a liaison, what information needs to be provided, or the process for how it is approved (or not).
For another take on this, the DMTF calls these "alliances" and the relationship/work items are captured in a document called a "work register".
The list of alliances and work registers can be found here:
https://www.dmtf.org/about/registers#sdoalliances
As an example, here is the Work Register that defines the relationship and work items between DMTF and SNIA (A storage SDO):
https://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/DMTF-SNIA_Work_Register_v1.5.pdf
The DMTF process defining alliances and how they are proposed, used is here:
https://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP4003_1.9.0.pdf
Also, it should be (easily) possible for WG and CG chairs, if not all participants, to learn who is the liaison with any given liaised organization, and what to do to enlist them in some crossover issue (e.g., IETF has a number of RFCs that collide with various CRs, PRs, and even TRs; how are these collisions to be resolved?). I think it would be worth at least linking out from the Process to the relevant area or page in the W3C site where those liaisons are listed (optimally sortable/searchable by external organization, liaison name, liaised W3C groups, and maybe more).
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Liaison, and agreed to the following:
RESOLVED: Close 422 (remove paragraphs about Liaisons) with no change
The full IRC log of that discussion
<fantasai> Topic: Liaison<joshco> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/422#issuecomment-1854071577
<fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/422
<fantasai> joshco: At TPAC we had breakout for WAT group wrt home automation
<fantasai> ... building implementation/integration that supports WAT
<fantasai> ... in those discussions, one thing that because obvious, is that ? adopted by a lot of commercial devices in smart home mark
<fantasai> ... does it make sense to see how W3C WAT can co-exist with MATTR?
<fantasai> ... asked if we have a liaison with CSA, and apparently there isn't
<fantasai> ... so what do we do? Can a CG do? what's the process to enable those kinds of discussions
<florian> q+
<plh> q+
<fantasai> florian: Originally I opened the issue
<fantasai> ... in my view liaisons are a good thing
<fantasai> ... having documentation about how we manage them would be goo
<plh> --> https://www.w3.org/liaisons/ Liaisons
<fantasai> s/goo/good/
<plh> ack florian
<fantasai> ... but what Process says right now is not very useful
<fantasai> ... so I was tempted to remove it
<fantasai> ... it doesn't strictly define what a liaison is, just says that they must be coordinated by the Team
<fantasai> ... but it doesn't say what they are!
<joshco> q+
<fantasai> ... if instead of deleting we can make this useful, that's also OK
<fantasai> ... as far as documenting liaisons in non-normative way
<fantasai> ... we have a page on the website that does a reasonable job of it
<fantasai> ... but significantly more useful than Process
<plh> ack plh
<fantasai> plh: I do believe liaison needs to be coordinated by Team
<florian> q+
<fantasai> ... don't want CG to open a liaison that might be harmful, to claim to have an official liaison
<fantasai> ... group can reach out to other orgs, but not on behalf of W3C
<fantasai> ... in practice, we rely on our WGs to deal with technical liaisons directly
<fantasai> ... our web page talksa bout activities, should say groups specifically
<fantasai> ... that way know to go to chair of a group
<fantasai> ... keep in mind that staff, even though listed there, doesn't necessarily mean liaison is active
<fantasai> ... or tracking what the other org is doing
<fantasai> ... just a point of entry -- that person would know status, at minimum
<joshco> for ref: https://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/DMTF-SNIA_Work_Register_v1.5.pdf
<fantasai> ... if some of our Members involved in that liaison, they would know as well
<joshco> for ref: https://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP4003_1.9.0.pdf
<fantasai> ... coordination with Dingwei last week, would be nice if we can list Member particpatns involved in those conversations
<fantasai> ... e.g. have experties in ISO
<fantasai> ... I'm open to it, didn't think through yet
<fantasai> ... idk if the Process needs to say more at this point, but open to ideas
<plh> ack josh
<fantasai> joshco: agree, CG, shouldn't go off and randomly create liaisons
<fantasai> ... but what would be needed to make liaison happen?
<fantasai> ... Links I posted in IRC
<fantasai> ... DSP4003 is process for its alliances (liaisons)
<fantasai> ... for each alliance, a work register is laid out
<fantasai> ... things that would need to be presented to Team
<fantasai> ... blurb on organization it's liaising with, area of work items, etc.
<fantasai> ... a bit more detail than W3C's table
<fantasai> ... I would say for Process, it might be helpful to be more specific about what groups should do to create a liaison
<fantasai> ... put this in the document and send to apropriate people
<fantasai> ... in this case, maybe understanding [missed]
<fantasai> ... we had discussion in CG and didn't know what to do
<plh> ack florian
<fantasai> florian: wrt CGs, a MUST statement in Process, process doesn't apply to CGs
<joshco> q+
<plh> ack fantasai
<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to suggest a link
<plh> q+
<plh> ack josh
<fantasai> fantasai: Doesn't apply to CGs, but liaisons are defined here, so CG can't make them without following this process
<plh> --> https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/ CG Process
<fantasai> fantasai: maybe just the link to this page is enough, seems to define the various details
<fantasai> joshco: where are CGs defined, ifnot in Process?
<fantasai> florian: I guess we can keep the text in the Process, if the requirement about organizing through Team is useful
<fantasai> florian: if you all think we should reject my issue to remove the text, I won't complain
<fantasai> ... but what do we do about documenting further, where does it go? Process or that web page?
<fantasai> plh: The must should stay.
<fantasai> ... and joshco, you might want to contact Dom to ask for guidance for liaisons through CGs
<fantasai> joshco: or ?? activity could establish liaison
<fantasai> plh: yes, can establish liaison on our official page, regardless of whether involved in a W3C group
<fantasai> ... not required to be through a group
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Close 422 (remove paragraphs about Liaisons) with no change
<fantasai> plh: if we need to add more documentation, let's open a new issue
<RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-w3process-minutes.html fantasai
Also, it should be (easily) possible for WG and CG chairs, if not all participants, to learn who is the liaison with any given liaised organization, and what to do to enlist them in some crossover issue (e.g., IETF has a number of RFCs that collide with various CRs, PRs, and even TRs; how are these collisions to be resolved?). I think it would be worth at least linking out from the Process to the relevant area or page in the W3C site where those liaisons are listed (optimally sortable/searchable by external organization, liaison name, liaised W3C groups, and maybe more).
That table is at https://www.w3.org/liaisons/ IMHO, it does not belong in the Process. The Process need not be an index to the w3.org website, especially for not-Process things.
