W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > June 2009

[minutes] eGov IG Chairs Call - 3 June 2009

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:39:37 +0200
Message-Id: <B12C21D4-A5FF-4B41-AD35-17918C93EC48@w3.org>
To: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Cc: Kevin Novak <kevinnovak@aia.org>, John Sheridan <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk>

Chairs and me are having some calls with W3C Comm that we are  
debriefing on recent group calls, but it was a while since we had a  
Chairs call, so we had one today. Please, find the minutes as text  
below and online at:





       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                eGovernment Interest Group -- Chairs Call

03 Jun 2009

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/03-egov-irc


           josema, kevin, john

           kevin, john



      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]"opengov dinner"
          2. [5]open data
          3. [6]re-chartering
      * [7]Summary of Action Items

"opengov dinner"

    kevin: I had a chat with other government stakeholders on how things
    are evolving (Adobe, CDT, Sunlight...)
    ... talk on opendata, discussions on business perspective
    ... on what's the long term impact for industry
    ... again on the "how" to move from the generic ideas to the
    practical stuff
    ... reinforces the points we made on the paper, people read it,
    found it useful

    john: very interesting stuff, how to move from strategy to
    implemented systems

    kevin: also discussion about the dialogue, some points Beth made on
    the blog post recently


       [8] http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Wrap-Up-of-the-Open-Government-Brainstorming-Transparency/

    john: one of things one need to do is to engineer processes in the
    system and get that kind of cultural change
    ... and that's hard to do

    kevin: agree
    ... creating this lines of business is hard
    ... sometimes people and power located at different agencies

open data

    john: one of the things that interesting me about transparency is
    how to connect it to public policy outcomes
    ... e.g. better spending of public money
    ... one way of achieving transparency is to put up data on the Web
    ... but then it's the question "so what?"
    ... what's the next part of journey looks like?
    ... and that's hard
    ... what datasets? what for? what's the expected final result?

    kevin: great point
    ... challenge is that some people in charge are technologists
    ... difficult form them to understand government business

    john: agree
    ... coming from tech perspective myself
    ... have seen people does not care
    ... there are bigger challenges

    kevin: right, e.g. cloud computing, well, a buzzword
    ... but what's in it for gov?
    ... would like to hear more of that

    john: someone could say it reduces total cost of ownership and a
    number of other things
    ... in terms of OGD reason is because improves some public policy
    ... totally different type of thinking
    ... not about lowering costs
    ... we tried to highlight some of this in the Note

    kevin: I'm glad we did not go very technical there


    kevin: working on a draft charter based on previous discussion with
    Comm and you both
    ... need to state goals clearly, e.g. need funding
    ... we might need something about protoyping
    ... Jose and I discussed a bit about this, and thought of 3 stages
    ... no money: some smaller thing
    ...money: a bigger one

    john: right, we need a consistent plan

    [kevin, tim likely to meet next week]

    [some discussion on whether we should have 3 TFs: OGD, Interop, Web
    Design + Development]

    john: I like OGD and WDD, a bit worried about interop
    ... interop is easy to say, difficult to define, *big* issue
    ... lots of stuff in there

    josema: interop from different POVs
    ... talked in the past much about front-end, big issue on its own
    ... back-end is *huge*

    kevin: we could focus on the things people have to deliver
    ... e.g. the data.gov kind of thing

    john: I mostly care about OGD, as you know

    jose: me mostly, too
    ... let's try a different approach, what would be the deliverables?

    <john> for me, ogd design patterns - likewise, why not web design

    <josema> I very much like that! but how government-specific are

    kevin: not one big deliverable, small docs, maybe kind of EricP W3C
    Tech Survey thing
    ... maybe better two TFs than three

    jose: let me see if I get it, we could split interop into two
    ... some of it goes to TF1, some to TF3, the relevant bits, so no
    TF2 needed, right?

    <john> yes

    kevin: right

    <josema> finally got it! :)

    [kevin to draft charter with two TFs in mind]

    [kevin to speak at DAS subcommittee meeting next week]


Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [9]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([10]CVS log)
     $Date: 2009/06/03 16:25:03 $

       [9] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [10] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:40:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:41 UTC