[IG Charter] IG Charter updates based on W3M review

[ashimura]

W3M review for the Draft IG Charter ongoing and got several comments to be considered as follows.

• IG activities and deliverables (esp. Plugfest and Marketing work)

  • The only Note published by the IG is the recent use cases and requirements document.
  • Yet, the current charter and the proposed one have an extensive list of exploration tasks and the Group and its task forces are having weekly calls. What achievement did we get in the past 2 years? For example, is our PlugFest/Testing effort effective?
    • See also wot-testing issue 198.
  • How does the WoT Marketing task force fit into the scope of the Group?
    • See also wot-marketing issue 217.
  • https://www.w3.org/WoT/activities/tf-marketing/ points to 404 if I try to see what the WoT Marketing TF is...

• Mission update

  • s/the Web of Things Working Group is developing a first set of standardized building blocks./the Web of Things Working Group has developed a first set of standardized building blocks./
  • (we published the first of RECs around WoT last yeast after all)

• Section "3.1 W3C Groups"

  • The following sentence is missing something:

  Web of Things Working Group
  For collaboration as outlined in .
  

  • outlined in which document?

• Section "4. Participation

  • Should remove "Working" from:

  "contribute half of a working day per week towards the
  (Working|Interest) Group."
  

[mmccool]

• Should capture Notes in progress: Security Best Practices (IG or WG?), Geolocation (IG), and Signatures (IG), Scripting (WG), Binding Templates (WG); Others?
• Marketing should be "Community Building" - maybe move to WoT CG
• Other things are technical (broken links etc) - I will fix
• Can also just explain the current task forces better

[mmccool]

for now, will just fix technical issues, add clarification around deliverables and TFs (e.g. marketing)

[mmccool]

I created a PR, #998, to fix the minor issues noted. Merging it will close this issue, even though it only addresses 3/4 of the points noted above. The Marketing TF is not discussed in the charter, so I think this was an out-of-band discussion based on content on the WoT web site, and so perhaps needs to be resolved there. Likewise we should let W3M know about Note status and plans, etc. (although perhaps these need updates in the history section of the proposed charter?).

[mmccool]

Regarding Notes, there are some other Notes in progress that are IG topics, including on Embedded JSON Signatures and Geolocation. Other Notes that are not so experimental, e.g. Security Best Practices and Protocol Bindings, should be published under the WG.

In general we probably should make more use of IG Notes. For example and in particular, we have tutorials under development, and they are listed as an IG deliverable, but we have not discussed publishing these as Notes. Perhaps we should, and if so, submit them to horizontal review (e.g. for accessibility).

Regarding the Marketing TF, it is basically community outreach (and should probably have been called that). For example, this group reviews the web site content and makes sure it is up to date, and also manages and reviews things like wikipedia entries, tweets, etc. We need to update (well, fix the link to...) the description on the web site to make this clearer (if that's what the first point above was referring to).

[mmccool]

Regarding the plugfest in particular, please see https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/labels/Plugfest%202021.09. This lists the projects done during the plugfest. We also had a plugfest report during our Open Day two weeks ago. Another question is should we be capturing the plugfest results more formally, i.e. publishing a plugfest report as a Note? Currently we are aiming only to publish specific topics, e.g. Geolocation, as a Note, once they are relatively mature and we need input from other organizations. Another option would be to review the various projects and see if a short Note is warranted on any of them.

[mmccool]

Marketing comments still need to be addressed.

[ashimura]

resolved by PR #1006

[ashimura]

done.