Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

Mapping of Manufacturing Capabilities (OKW) Task Force Charter

Published onMay 23, 2023
see published version
view latest release
Mapping of Manufacturing Capabilities (OKW) Task Force Charter
·

Open Know-How (OKW) Working Group Charter

The core purpose of the OKW initiative is to…

The mission of the OKW Working Group is to focus on the OKW Inititiative, including:

  • Strategic direction of OKW;

  • Potential projects;

  • Prioritization of workstreams.

Initiative direction, projects, and workstreams should complement and enhance existing standards.

1. Introduction

dddd

2. Scope

The Working Group has the following work items in scope:

Scope Summary

After each work item, in parenthesis, we identify the deliverables it may be included in.

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Define link relation types for specific relationships.

Details for each of these are given below.

2.1 dddd

2.2 dddd

2.3 dddd

3. Deliverables

dddd

3.1. Normative Specifications

3.2. Other Deliverables

3.3. Timeline

[by quartile]

4. Success Criteria

In order to advance to Proposed Recommendation, each specification is expected to have at least two independent implementations of each of feature defined in the specification.

Each specification should contain a section detailing all known security and privacy implications for implementers, Web authors, and end users.

There should be testing plans for each specification, starting from the earliest drafts.

Each specification should contain a section on accessibility that describes the benefits and impacts, including ways specification features can be used to address them, and recommendations for maximising accessibility in implementations.

To promote interoperability, all changes made to specifications should have associated tests.

In addition, all APIs and data formats should have formal definitions, such as data schemas, that allow for automatic validation.

5. Coordination

For all specifications, this Working Group will seek horizontal review for accessibility, internationalization, performance, privacy, and security with the relevant Working and Interest Groups, and with the TAG. Invitation for review must be issued during each major standards-track document transition, including FPWD. The Working Group is encouraged to engage collaboratively with the horizontal review groups throughout development of each specification. The Working Group is advised to seek a review at least 3 months before first entering CR and is encouraged to proactively notify the horizontal review groups when major changes occur in a specification following a review.

Additional technical coordination with the following Groups will be made, per the W3C Process Document:

5.1. IOP Groups

Council

OKW

6. Participation

To be successful, this Working Group is expected to have 6 or more active participants for its duration, including representatives from the key implementors of this specification, and active Editors and Test Leads for each specification. Ideally the Working Group would draw from different constituencies, with members from end-device manufacturers in various verticals, gateway/edge device manufacturers, and cloud providers. The Chairs, specification Editors, and Test Leads are expected to each contribute at least half of a working day per week towards the Working Group. There is no minimum requirement for other Participants.

The group encourages questions, comments and issues on its public mailing lists and document repositories, [potential link to forum].

The group also welcomes non-Members to contribute technical submissions for consideration upon their agreement to the terms of the [patent policy to consider?]

Participants in the group are required (by the [identified processes]) to follow the IOP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.

7. Communication

Technical discussions for this Working Group are conducted in [public]: the meeting minutes from teleconference and face-to-face meetings will be archived for public review, and technical discussions and issue tracking will be conducted in a manner that can be both read and written to by the general public. Working Drafts and Editor's Drafts of specifications will be developed on a public repository and may permit direct public contribution requests. The meetings themselves are not open to public participation, however.

Information about the group (including details about deliverables, issues, actions, status, participants, and meetings) will be available from the [community forum?].

Most Working Group teleconferences will focus on discussion of particular specifications, and will be conducted on an as-needed basis.

This group primarily conducts its technical work on GitHub issues using both a [IOP Git?] and repos specific to each deliverable. The public is invited to review, discuss and contribute to this work.

The group may use a Member-confidential mailing list for administrative purposes and, at the discretion of the Chairs and members of the group, for member-only discussions in special cases when a participant requests such a discussion.

8. Decision Policy

This group will seek to make decisions through consensus and due process, per the W3C Process Document (Section 3.3). Typically, an editor or other participant makes an initial proposal, which is then refined in discussion with members of the group and other reviewers, and consensus emerges with little formal voting being required.

However, if a decision is necessary for timely progress and consensus is not achieved after careful consideration of the range of views presented, the Chairs may call for a group vote and record a decision along with any objections.

To afford asynchronous decisions and organizational deliberation, any resolution (including publication decisions) taken in a face-to-face meeting or teleconference will be considered provisional. A call for consensus (CfC) will be issued for all resolutions (for example, via email and/or web-based survey), with a response period from one week to 10 working days, depending on the chair's evaluation of the group consensus on the issue. If no objections are raised on the mailing list by the end of the response period, the resolution will be considered to have consensus as a resolution of the Working Group.

All decisions made by the group should be considered resolved unless and until new information becomes available or unless reopened at the discretion of the Chairs or the Director.

This charter is written in accordance with the W3C Process Document (Section 3.4, Votes) and includes no voting procedures beyond what the Process Document requires.

9. Licensing

This Working Group will use the [license recommendation] for all its deliverables.

10. About This Charter

History, versioning, etc

Comments
1
Sarah Hutton:

Sarah Hutton:

Below section taken from WoT verbatim, leaving in as example for review. What decision making process do we want to use?

Sarah Hutton:

Taken from WoT, ammended slightly - with further edits, language almost viable to adopt as-is, provided vocabulary matching.

Sarah Hutton:

IOP Draft in process (pending approval by Governance TF)

Sarah Hutton:

Process taken directly from WoT; what decision making chain do we want to model in the IOP? Simplicity with option to scale as org matures is key.

Sarah Hutton:

Section taken directly from WoT Charter (link in notes)

Sarah Hutton:

Section taken directly from WoT Charter (link in notes)

Sarah Hutton:

We are not yet to this level of maturity:

A Proposed Recommendation is a document that has been accepted by W3C as of sufficient quality to become a W3C Recommendation. This phase triggers formal review by the Advisory Committee, who may recommend that the document be published as a W3C Recommendation, returned to the Working Group for further work, or abandoned. Substantive changes must not be made to a Proposed Recommendation except by publishing a new Working Draft or Candidate Recommendation.

Sarah Hutton:

Could perhaps default to vote/quorum of identified, preexisting body.

Sarah Hutton:

OKH Initiative sketched (Google Doc): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VQCw4y7xRh6bMdu11ZcFYfV2igU7CPdZgqJBviFx9U4/edit

Sarah Hutton:

Link to IOP CoC in DRAFT: https://standards.internetofproduction.org/pub/code-conduct/draft

Sarah Hutton:

Horizontal review for coordination: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Wide_and_Horizontal_Review

Sarah Hutton:

Link to decision making process workflow in Miro: https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVMGly5-Y=/?moveToWidget=3458764554918899190&cot=14

Sarah Hutton