search

w3c / strategy

team-strat, on GitHub, working in public. Current state: DRAFT
151 stars 45 forks source link

i18n WG & IG rechartering 2021 #271

Closed r12a closed 2 years ago

r12a commented 3 years ago

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

WG Charter:

IG Charter:

What kind of charter is this? This charter is essentially the same as the previous charter, given that the work of the i18n WG is ongoing, and there are no new Recommendation track deliverables.

Communities suggested for outreach: none

Known or potential areas of concern: none

Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? this strategy funnel issue

Anything else we should think about as we review? no

himorin commented 3 years ago

(ok to be labelled as i18n review completed??? as self review?)

For ruby annotation spec link, I think there is another WG NOTE which was merged into previous W3C one https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-html-ruby-extensions-20140204/ which should be the suitable one?

r12a commented 3 years ago

@himorin that note was merged into the W3C HTML spec (and vestiges of it found their way into the WhatWG HTML spec). It was created and published by the HTML WG. I'm not clear why that would be relevant to the i18n WG charter(?)

michael-n-cooper commented 3 years ago

APA has no comments on these charters, and feels comfortable with its ability to coordinate with these groups. Over to @brewerj to complete accessibility horizontal review.

himorin commented 3 years ago

I'm not clear why that would be relevant to the i18n WG charter(?)

I neither, but ruby annotation spec is listed in the list of deliverables: https://www.w3.org/International/i18n-activity/i18n-wg/other-charters/proposed-charter-2021-2023.html#deliverables

r12a commented 3 years ago

To perhaps make things a little clearer, i changed the last sentence in that paragraph from

This specification defines markup for ruby.

to

This specification defined an XHTML module for ruby markup.

Note that we don't currently envisage making changes to any of these specs, and perhaps that applies especially to the Ruby Annotation spec.

himorin commented 3 years ago

Thank you for comment, @r12a . I now understand backgrounds. One additional point, but quite minor, 2.1 timeline at the last of section 2 might be 2.6? (nothing other I believe)

samuelweiler commented 3 years ago

Here are diffs for both charters: For the WG for the IG

I see that this issue says to file comments here. The proposed WG charter (but not the IG charter) directs comments into the i18n-activity repo. For now, I'm (only) filing here, as requested. Let me know if you want them filed in i18n-activity (and maybe take that link out of the charter, unless you really want them there?).

For the WG:

For the IG:

Marking this as needs-resolution for the WG only, for the HR comment in bold above.

r12a commented 3 years ago

WG

The history section needs a link to the current/2019 charter. https://www.w3.org/International/groups/wg/charter.html

Done.

Please expand the IRI acronym the first time it is used

It was in an abbr element, which provided the expansion. Nevertheless, i took that out and expanded the acronym.

What is meant by "Maintain positive feedback for outreach materials."? I'm not sure I object, but this is a weird criterion.

It means to continue to produce great materials that people compliment us on and use.

Since the WG is maintaining Recs, presumably it needs the HR (and testing?) boilerplate. I note that the participation section mentions test leads, suggesting that there is testing. (It might instead be appropriate to hav e a line about NOT testing, given what these specs are...)

To be clear, we very much hope that we will not need to work on those maintenance specs and we have no plans or expectations for it to be necessary, so the boilerplate will probably not be needed. Nevertheless, i added it.

The testing we refer to is related to the i18n test suite, which tests support for i18n features in browsers. We have no plans to work on any specs that would require feature testing.

It seems odd that a WG (v. people who happen to be members of a WG) would attempt to publish conference papers under its own name (Section 4.2).

I removed the offending phrase.

Previous WG charters (e.g. https://www.w3.org/International/core/charter-2016.html) need notes saying they're obsolete and pointing at the next-newest charter

I'll need to do that for the previous charter later, and will try to remember to do it for others that may need it.

r12a commented 3 years ago

For the IG:

The history section needs a link to the current/2019 charter. https://www.w3.org/International/groups/ig/charter.html

Done.

s/Working Group Notes/Interest Group Notes/

clarified: "by the Internationalization Working Group as Working Group Notes"

s/ on a public repository/ in public repositories/

Done.

Do we really need the redundant mention of lists being public, in section 7?

Maybe.

r12a commented 3 years ago

@brewerj do you have any comments arising from your discussion last week, or are we able to move forward?

plehegar commented 2 years ago

@r12a , any objection to start the W3M review for those charters?

r12a commented 2 years ago

No objection. I heard no objections from Judy, and the i18n WG is ready and waiting.

plehegar commented 2 years ago

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2021JulSep/0051.html