Lists Home |
Date Index |
Michael Champion wrote:
> There has been talk (I can't find a public reference so I won't say
> more, maybe Liam can?) of a new type of group that would do more
> experimental "design by committee" work that would result in a
> specification or other work product that had no claims to be a
> standard. Presumably a regular working group could then pick up such
> a spec, refactor / refine / test / clarify it and then see it through
> to Recommendation status.
I don't think they have been officially announced, but they've been
discussed in public plenty of times, so while I have no pointer they're
Those groups would be called XGs (I can't recall what the 'X' meant,
assuming it meant anything), formerly known as Incubator Groups. The
idea is pretty much what Mike says, the XG would be limited to a one
year charter, at the end of which it would have to prove that it's
produced (or able to produce) good quality tech that's a real industry
standard, etc. There was a mention of XGs being able to produce
documents that could then go straight into LC as soon as a WG is
created, though I think that's a bad idea.
They are being modelled based in part on experience gathered doing the
first Device Independence WG (which has since been rechartered as a
"proper WG"), and the XBC WG, both of which had similar constraints.
So yes, this notion of extreme specwriting is indeed being explored,
however while I think that XGs are a very good idea, I don't think they
are sufficient to address the endemic problems of the current WGs.
Senior Research Scientist