Community Groups and Business Groups should be incorporated into the Process

[cwilso]

Community and Business Groups live outside the main W3C Process today. That has resulted in a multitude of charters for CGs, particularly, that define their own processes and modus operandi. Unfortunately, as these start seeming more and more like the lite version of WGs, their processes can be uneven, and there is no way to official raise that, object, or even officially ask for changes (as chairs are essentially BDFLs in CGs).

I think the time is right for establishing clear standards (ha!) for CGs/BGs - chairing, process, and oversight.

[TzviyaSiegman]

Big +1

[dwsinger]

We seem to be using CGs more and more as part of 'normal operations', and maybe that means we either strengthen and harmonize CGs to be suitable for that as Chris says, or leave CGs as truly being places for the community to experiment/play, and have a new, more harmonious, structure for these normal-operation-groups that really are affiliated to the W3C.

[fantasai]

Alternately, have a lighter-weight process for chartering a new WG so that actual work can move into WG-land instead of living in unofficial CG-land?

[nigelmegitt]

This reminds me of the point I raised at the TPAC Chair's meal that the difficulty we have with different group types is primarily caused by us having document-focused deliverables organised via group-focused constraints and processes.

Following on from @dwsinger 's #409 (comment) and @fantasai 's #409 (comment), I would suggest that tinkering with CGs now is likely to be of little benefit. Instead, what we need is a way to manage documents all the way through from initial idea to [whatever we decide is the best final state] carrying the interested people with it along the way, and applying appropriate policies in terms of IPR, testing etc. while minimising the overheads associated with joining/leaving groups.

In my view this (document-focused restructuring) would be a big change, and we should be looking at it possibly for P2021 or more likely P2022. I don't see changing the current CG process as urgent for P2020.

[jeffjaffe]

Providing a link to closed #17 so we have the linkage to the earlier discussion.

[ianbjacobs]

Hi all,
For CGs and BGs we created a long time ago a comparative table:
https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/compare/

I expect it will need to be updated along with Process 2020 and other resources. If it would be useful in a Process Document, please do so. :)

Ian

[palemieux]

Other large standards organizations (SMPTE, ISO...) have shallow hierarchical structures where focused work is conducted in smaller groups that report to larger groups, each with a scope that cover a general area of interest, e.g. audio, video, packaged media, etc. The smaller groups are informal and have minimal process, whereas the larger group are responsible for applying process.

This works well in my experience because:

• focused/speculative work can take place with minimum overhead
• focused/speculative work benefit from the review and critical mass of the larger parent group
• it is possible to follow work in a given area by following a single group, instead of having to discover/follow a myriad of smaller groups
• process is applied consistently
• unplanned duplicative work between groups is minimized

I suggest W3C consider a similar structure, e.g. CGs/BGs could report into WGs/IGs. This would address the current challenge with having to discover/follow 300 CGs across discord, github, mailing lists, IRC, etc.

[dwsinger]

Note that this was discussed (as phrased) and rejected earlier: the W3C process governs member activities and is linked to the member agreement. CGs and BGs are open to non-members, and hence separately described and governed (yes, this could be worked around).

[plehegar]

(Related #326 )

[mnot]

Whether or not we define CGs/BGs in this process, we need to reconsider them urgently. People now regularly confuse them with the standards-setting activities of the W3C, and may not be fit for the purposes they're now expected to serve.

This has long been the case in the WICG, whose specifications are often referred to as standards that define the Web platform. Now, we're seeing enough contention in the Improving Web Advertising BG to raise questions about meeting rules, and emerging controversy about Google's domination of schema.org CG.

I don't think we can still reasonably characterise these activities as 'experiment/play.' It's more accurate to describe them as workarounds to the Membership model's shortcomings.

And, while the CG/BG infrastructure has some protections regarding IPR, I very much wonder whether it will withstand scrutiny from an antitrust standpoint; if decisions are being made about the future of Web browsers, advertising and ontology (to use just the three examples above) that reinforces a monopoly, it doesn't matter that it happens in public under established IPR terms.

Even if the W3C may not be liable in such an eventuality, we can't ignore the effect on the W3C's reputation.

[dwsinger]

The AB has realized that, in a sense, we have tried out (incubated) the idea of incubation, and to do that, we used an existing structure (CGs) rather than inventing a new one. It's probably time to take incubation out of incubation; CGs are formally more arms-length than places where preparatory work of the consortium is done.

[chaals]

I think we need to understand why groups are doing incubation in a CG. The explanation that has made the most sense to me is that there is value in a lightweight structure that makes it reasonable to try something and fail fast.

But using the CG as if it were a working group has several problems:

• There is no requirement on fair structure, so the risk that it fails to satisfy requirements of anti-trust is there. I haven't seen a lot of examples where engineering-led work is well set up to manage that risk.
• The relative lack of visibility compared to Working Groups means that the membership doesn't really have a fair opportunity to decide on participation.
• There is no procedure to oppose the work of a CG, unlike say the Policy IG that was stopped by the membership. The process for stopping Working Groups at W3C isn't that great for several reasons, but at least there is a nominal check with the membership.

So how we handle the process moving from "no, it didn't fail" to "this is something that might make a reasonable standard for the Web" needs work.

[wseltzer]

@chaals mentions the requirements of fairness and anti-trust above.

While CGs are not currently under the W3C Process, they are subject to CG agreements and process requirements, including openness, transparency, and fairness.

When taking work from CG as input to spec development (either as a new WG or new deliverable in an existing WG), the team and membership have the opportunity to evaluate both the technical work and the process and participatory nature of its development.

[jwrosewell]

The W3C is an industry body which brings together a range of competitors and industry players in order to develop standards. As such, it falls within something akin to a safe harbour under competition law, but only when it is facilitating discussions and cooperation for the purpose of developing competitively neutral standards (see section 7 of the EU Horizontal Guidelines, particularly paragraphs 264-269).

Where either (i) discussions outside of this remit are being facilitated, or (ii) the standards being developed are not competitively neutral, there is a risk that the organisation and its members are falling foul of competition law rules against collusion (see Article 101, Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union).

In respect of community groups and business groups which do not contribute to the formation of a standard, therefore, discussions taking place therein could cause liability for collusion.

ANY company representative that receives information or simply hears unacceptable discussions carries potential liability and will be presumed to have participated unless there is evidence to the contrary.

For example, where something is being discussed, such as the implementation of a specific technical standard, which has a commercial or business benefit, or which favours one competitor or business or ecosystem over another, the attendees may later be found guilty of participating in collusion and cartel activity.

All exchanges of confidential, strategic information between competitors can give rise to competition concerns. This concerns all types of information that reduce strategic uncertainty in the market, for example relating to production costs, customer lists, turnover, sales, capacities, qualities, marketing plans, etc. Furthermore, even the unilateral disclosure of strategic information by one company via mail, email, phone calls or meetings to its competitor(s) can be considered problematic.

Participants should be warned to take their own independent legal advice before joining these groups.

Wherever participants are concerned about discussions supporting the W3C goals of the One Web and interoperability, or discussion that may be furthering the business or commercial interest of one party of group of businesses over another, to avoid liability that concern should be expressed and a formal minute recorded by the W3C independent governance system, and the discussion should be expressly terminated and discontinued.

Making illegitimate discussion a matter that is defined to be beyond the scope of the W3C as an organisation would potentially also additionally protect W3C and its members from liability.

[dwsinger]

I think we have a visibility problem for groups doing Exploration; and we have a problem that it's hard to tell which CGs are consensus-associated with the W3C's operation, and which ones are harebrained ideas from somewhere in another galaxy.

I don't like making the process any longer. I don't want to 'break' CGs as they are a useful community tool.

Do we need Exploration Groups, EGs? They would operate much like CGs today — not assured of team support or involvement, lighterweight charter and formation process, and so on?

[dwsinger]

I think the direct proposal should be answered "no", because CGs are open to anyone. However, maybe we should define how CGs that are used by the W3C Community are so used, and any extra rules or guidelines they are under?

[mnot]

FWIW - I care less about whether the CG/BG process is in this process document, and more that it's well-defined and usable. Putting it behind a bunch of tabs with a comic-sans-y header typeface is not a great start. Many of the details are perfunctory.

Can we start an effort to come up with a proper CG/BG process?

[jeffjaffe]

@mnot I suggest we start with https://www.w3.org/community/about/

Should we open new issues with a "CG/BG label" against that existing documentation?

[dwsinger]

I don't think the Process CG owns the CG/BG process, does it? Maybe it should...

[chaals]

I don't think the Process CG owns the CG/BG process

W3C owns its work, and clearly the CGs/BGs that it hosts are covered by that. The claims to some process - admittedly pretty weak in quality - are further evidence. W3C currently uses this group (alongside Advisory Board meetings, which are private) to drive its process. There is no reason that CG/BG process should not be part of that discussion.

It is the case that when CGs were set up, there was an explicit goal to have them be very lightweight and autonomous, and that was in part to encourage communities who found it too challenging to set up a W3C Interest Group.

It seems that many W3C communities who can demonstrably set up a Working Group are using CGs, and those groups are subject to W3C Process for very good reasons. There's a strong argument to be made, IMHO, that the interface between WGs and CGs should be covered more clearly in the existing Process.

[frivoal]

I think the process/rules by which CGs and BGs are governed should be maintained, and doing with the community's involvement in a group like this one is quite possibly the right thing to do. I don't think rules about BGs and CGs should/can be in the same document, because they're binding to different people via different contractual agreements. (Rules about how WGs adopt work from CGs are fair game).

Also, the Process has clear rules about how it is supposed to be revised, which are just as binding as the Process itself, since they're part of it. Does the CG/BG have provisions for being revised?

[dwsinger]

we probably should look at CGs and BGs that are "part of w3C operations" (notably incubation related) and establish some norms for them.

But we'd need to know what specifically should be addressed, and how to address the concerns while respecting that the Process applies to members and that CGs are open to the public.

(Note that clarifying incubation is not currently a priority at the AB either)

[plehegar]

Deferred for next Process update

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed CG and BG processes into Process, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Defer this cycle

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Topic: CG and BG processes into Process
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/409
<fantasai> plh: I fear we have other priorities
<fantasai> plh: Are we OK to defer this yet again?
<weiler> fantasai: this is a big topic; I'm not sure what's being proposed is the way forward
<fantasai> plh: Doubt more important than DF
<fantasai> plh: Proposal is to defer yet again
<fantasai> florian: Yes, defer
<fantasai> florian: They are *mentioned* in the Process, but defined elsewhere
<jeff__> q+
<fantasai> jeff__: Small thing related to this context, have we made adequately clear that CEPC applies to CGs and BGs?
<fantasai> wseltzer: Yes, it is in the Join to those groups
<weiler> q+
<fantasai> jeff__: To me that's the most important linkage that we might have
<plh> ack jeff
<fantasai> weiler: Rather than merely defer, how are we going ot get communities to tackle this?
<fantasai> weiler: It's bigger than us
<plh> ack weiler
<fantasai> weiler: How do we get tackle
<fantasai> florian: I don't even know what we're trying to achieve, and we have other things we do want to achieve
<fantasai> florian: if can wrap it up in 5min... otherwise defer
<fantasai> weiler: not defer for us to do later, but kick it to some other part of community
<fantasai> plh: We are the community. We're the CG for the Process
<wseltzer> [Unless someone who proposes an alternative comes forward, I think we drop it.]
<fantasai> plh: If someone wants to work on this, not going to object for sure
<fantasai> plh: do we need to actively assign the work?
<fantasai> plh: is deferred, not closed
<fantasai> plh: I just want to send a clear signal that we don't have resources right now to take care of it
<Ralph> scribe+
<florian> fantasai: much of why CG's need more process is because they're trying to do things that should be done in WGs
<Ralph> scribe-
<plh> zakim, move to next agendum
<Zakim> agendum 3 -- Director-Free: Recusal from W3C Council -- taken up [from plh]
<florian> fantasai: so we should rather look into why they're doing that and fix that problem isntead
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Defer this cycle
<jeff__> q+

[plehegar]

Note: this is still deferred but remains an issue nevertheless, such as for meeting requirements.