W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-council@w3.org > September 2012

Re: Folding the Trust CG into RWW CG

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:17:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhL=vkAkMMPR3=-kEG7YALsgeWaBS0mkVp8a20VPzxFztQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
Cc: public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, public-unctsw <public-unctsw@w3.org>, "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
On 30 September 2012 12:03, Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org> wrote:

>
> [+ public-council@w3.org for the archive and documentation]
>
>
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 11:40:42 +0200, Melvin Carvalho <
> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  On 27 September 2012 21:27, Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>  On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:09:49 +0200, Melvin Carvalho <
>>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  I've spoken to Dominik Tomaszuk about the possibility of folding work on
>>>
>>>> trust from unctsw (Uncertainty and Trust in the Semantic Web) into the
>>>> read-write web group.
>>>>
>>>> The reason is that the CG has fallen inactive (no chair, no posts in the
>>>> last 6 months).  In fact the only 2 messages on the mailing list to date
>>>> have been Coralie asking for a chair to be picked and the wiki is empty.
>>>>
>>>> So far I've had two +1s (dominik and rszeno) for folding unctsw into
>>>> RWW.
>>>> I do also think that trust will become an important topic for the RWW as
>>>> things mature, so a +1 also from me.
>>>>
>>>> Given that the other CG is inactive, I suspect conversation will be
>>>> light,
>>>> and if things pick up significantly we can always split conversation out
>>>> into its own group.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know if there's any objections to this, happy to consider
>>>> alternatives.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hi Melvin
>>>
>>> We can work things out the way you describe. Please, just let me know
>>> when
>>> you're ready.
>>>
>>>
>> Coralie, sounds great.  Please let me know if there's anything you need
>> from me.
>>
>
> Hi Melvin, all,
>
> Here's the procedure we came up with. Let's use "target CG" to refer to
> rww CG, and "source CG" to refer to unctsw CG in this case:
>
>  * Everyone not yet in the target CG will need to join it.
>  * If the target CG wants to take up the source CG's specification, they
> can, but:
>    a) If they've published in the reports database, we'll want to make
> some adjustments about who
>        own the report.
>    b) We'll need contributors to the original specification to re-assert
> their commitment in the new group. A simple
>        email will do.
>  * We can close the source CG and leave some pointers that it's moved to
> the target CG.
>
> It doesn't appear that unctsw CG has worked on any specification. If that
> is correct, only items 1 and 3 above apply.
>

Sounds great.  From what I checked there's been no activity in the unctsw
group since inception.  I think the group is essentially dormant.


>
> Participants of the unctsw CG need to join rww CG:
>   https://www.w3.org/community/**rww/join<https://www.w3.org/community/rww/join>
>
> There are 23 participants, 14 of whom are apparently already members of
> rww CG (internal ref: <https://www.w3.org/2000/09/**
> dbwg/overlap?ids%5B48702%5D=**on&ids%5B48594%5D=on<https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/overlap?ids%5B48702%5D=on&ids%5B48594%5D=on>
> >):
>

Great that RWW already contains the majority of participants.  So that
leaves 9, if they still have interest in the topic.


>
> Kingsley Idehen (OpenLink Software Inc.)
> Daniel Renfer (Daniel Renfer)
> Ted Thibodeau (OpenLink Software Inc.)
> Melvin Carvalho (Melvin Carvalho)
> Dominik Tomaszuk (Dominik Tomaszuk)
> Pavlik elf (Pavlik elf)
> Markus Sabadello (Markus Sabadello)
> Roger Macdonald (Roger Macdonald)
> Julia Anaya (Julia Anaya)
> Raanan Avidor (Raanan Avidor)
> zeno ruset (zeno ruset)
> Jonas Smedegaard (Jonas Smedegaard)
> Ivan Herman (Ivan Herman)
> Henry Story (The Apache Software Foundation)
>
> We can close unctsw CG at the end of October (or sooner, as appropriate).
>

Sounds perfect.


>
> The description of rww CG should be updated to reflect this change. The
> current description reads:
> [[
> Focus on Read-Write aspect of the WWW via use of WebID protocol and ACLs.
> ]]
>

Makes sense.  Our google plus page is a slight more general: 'Using Web
Standards to Both Read and Write'

I'll send a topic out to the list on this.


>
> Let me know what to replace it with. Let me know if you feel it does NOT
> need to be replaced. If this is the case I invite the chair of RWW CG to
> blog about the change.
>
> Does this plan work for people?


Perfect.  I was planning to send out a blog today, in which I'll mention
this.  I can do a further blog in october on this topic as necessary.


>
>
> Coralie
>
>
> --
>   Coralie Mercier  -  W3C Communications Team  -  http://www.w3.org
>      W3C/ERCIM - B219 - 2004, rte des lucioles - 06410 Biot - FR
> mailto:coralie@w3.org +33492387590 http://www.w3.org/People/**CMercier/<http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/>
>
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2012 10:18:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 30 September 2012 10:18:00 GMT