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;
Prioritization of workstreams.
Initiative direction, projects, and workstreams should complement and enhance existing standards.
The Working Group has the following work items in scope:
After each work item, in parenthesis, we identify the deliverables it may be included in.
Define link relation types for specific relationships.
Details for each of these are given below.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
This Working Group will use the [license recommendation] for all its deliverables.
History, versioning, etc