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

Re: [minutes] eGov IG Call, 10 June 2009

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:45:30 +0200
Cc: Sharron Rush <srush@knowbility.org>, Kevin Novak <kevinnovak@aia.org>, John Sheridan <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk>
Message-Id: <47977015-92D5-43E3-B131-75E85181A2B4@w3.org>
To: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>

The date on the subject of announcement message was wrong s/2007/2009.  
Contrary to rumors, I don't own a time machine yet! ;)

Also removed HughB from participants list. He tells me he was only on  
IRC at the beginning but had to leave.

-- Jose

El 10/06/2009, a las 23:44, Jose M. Alonso escribió:

> Available at:
>  http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-minutes
> and as text below.
> Thanks very much to Sharron for scribing the meeting today.
> Next meeting: 24 June 2009, 13:00Z (scribe: Rachel)
> ------------
>   [1]W3C
>      [1] http://www.w3.org/
>                              - MINUTES -
>                    eGovernment Interest Group Call
> 10 Jun 2009
> Agenda
>    1. Agenda adjustments
>    2. What's going on
>    3. Charter and Plan: Open discussion of [2]Charter2 draft
>      [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Charter2
> Attendees
>   Present
>          Kevin, Rachel, Brand, Owen, Hugh B, Daniel, Sharron, Suzanne,
>          Dave Mc
>   Regrets
>          Jose, John
>   Chair
>          Kevin
>   Scribe
>          Sharron
> Contents
>     * [3]Topics
>         1. [4]Agenda adjustments
>         2. [5]What's going on, Activity update
>         3. [6]Open discussion of Charter 2 draft / Use Cases
>     * [7]Summary of Action Items
>     _________________________________________________________
> Agenda adjustments
>   Kevin: Light agenda. Will update egov activies, look at charter
>   draft. Anything to add?
>   Rachel: Use cases?
>   Kevin: Yes, OK. Will add discussion of Use Cases to the charter
>   discussion.
> What's going on - activy update
>   Kevin: Federal gov has moved into Phase 2 of Open Government
>   initiative.
>   ... I participated in call last week. There were four areas of
>   conversation that I tweeted out.
>   ... The most relevant to us is the 4th item, comments and queries
>   about data presentation. Our group has been asked to participate and
>   take on a role similar to a moderator.
>   ... If you have been following the posts, there are some ridiculous
>   comments. A new method of managing comments will preserve the
>   absurd, but within a hierarchy that brings the best, most serious
>   ideas to the top.
>   ... What has finally happened is that the expectation sahred among
>   many advocacy groups for a strategy document to be quickly developed
>   - those expectations have been adjusted. Participants are
>   understanding that we can't just flip a switch and that federal
>   processes take longer than expected.
>   ... I will forward links and I encourage our group to participate
>   and even take a role in moderation.
>   ... The ideas on the forum run the gamut and our group has the
>   expertise to contribute meaningfully.
>   <Sharron> ACTION: Kevin - will post links related to recent
>   activities of federal Open Government Initiative. [recorded in
>   [8]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-minutes.html#action01]
>   <Daniel_Bennett> Let the 1000th idea bloom
>   Kevin: Ours was the 1000th idea posted and Beth reported that they
>   got about 2500 ideas. The current phase will go on for a week or so,
>   and dialogue will continue beyond that as systems are figured out.
>   ... I am meeting with TBL by phone and in person this week. Tim will
>   also meet with Beth and I will debrief him about egov activities so
>   that he is prepared. Plan to ask TBL to help us get funding to
>   develop prototypes.
>   ... Tim has been tapped into recovery.gov and data.gov and is
>   committed to being very involved.
>   Suzanne: Did you mention that data.gov is in Phase 2?
>   ... They are looking at sustainability. Federal CIOs that are part
>   of the Federal CIO council have been asked to commit a person within
>   each agency to do the data mining and to submit data from 100% of
>   federal agencies.
>   ... I am POC of POC Group and we have started a workgroup to train
>   them. Those who get it and are very good at it, we will ask them to
>   continue to help train the others. Tomorrow the POC group will
>   teleconference and I will introduce roles and responsibilities.
>   ... Friday we will have a F2F to recognize candidate data sets. We
>   will also have monthly meetings and will want the participants to
>   understand the importance of the work of the eGov.
>   Kevin: EPA contact suggested that they submit a draft proposal to us
>   for our feedback.
>   Owen: Has a metadata template been published?
>   Suzanne: Don't know if it has been finalized. We are learning as we
>   go to make sure that metadata is understood.
>   Kevin: Scientific abstract schema was something being looked at.
>   Suzanne: Yes, but no hard decisions have been made.
>   Owen: Metadata is of great interest to data managers.
>   Kevin: Yes we talked alot about the importance.
>   Suzanne: Things are a still a bit messy but we are learning and
>   finely tuning it.
>   <Owen> Suzanne is scheduled to speak about the FEA DRM in relation
>   to records management at FIRM's forum at FTC on June 23:
>   [9]http://firmcouncil.org/docs/20090623ForumAgenda.pdf
>      [9] http://firmcouncil.org/docs/20090623ForumAgenda.pdf
>   Kevin: I had another meeting with BSA and an IBM IP rep attended.
>   Talked about IBMs dual role, using open source technology but also
>   that they use proprietary modes of operation. He was considering
>   participation in eGov from IBM. I met with Adobe as well and talked
>   about their reaction to the first doc and how we were working to
>   mediate their concerns. They were pleased and seem cognizant of the
>   urgency of our tasks and the need for respect and patience for other
>   points of view.
>   ... That's about all the news for now, let's look at the charter
>   draft.
> Open Discussion of Charter draft / Use Cases
>   Kevin: I went back to our F2F and email comments.
>   ... within the first charter, it was hard for many of us to
>   understand where to grab on and what roles each of us could assume.
>   Now that first issue paper is complete, we can focus in on open
>   government data and web development to provide avenues for
>   accessibility, validation and such. We decided to keep the category
>   of web development in there in recognition of the fact that not
>   everyone is comfortable pulling XML files, etc and that we need an
>   interface for all citizens.
>   ... I think we may also want to create issue papers on good HTML
>   practice,etc. Goals, measures and strategies are to meant to provide
>   task descriptions that each can take on. We want to get a final
>   charter doc to them in July.
>   Rachel: The way that we write the more technical stuff is important.
>   The clearer the language is, the broader the audience that we can
>   work with and that we can expect to reach. Can we do anything to the
>   current doc?
>   Kevin: Judy Brewer provided input on several sentences at the front.
>   Our understanding was that we were not allowed to touch the paper
>   once it was published. Judy reminded us that we could indeed rewrite
>   it. Based on what is out there now, we can revise and rewrite
>   certain sections that are there. It is lengthly and meant to be read
>   in sections, not in one sitting.
>   ... In second year charter, I am suggesting that we publish shorter
>   documents more frequently and more topically.
>   Daniel: Plain language means to me that we need more editing. Policy
>   needed to clarify publishing and editing cycles. Work backwards from
>   deadlines.
>   Kevin: Good point. The editing cycle on the first one precluded
>   editing to the extent that we had hoped.
>   Owen: Who are we writing for? If academics, perhaps the approach was
>   fine, but if policy makers, need brevity.
>   Kevin: We need to reach both sides of the fence. Some policy people
>   are highly technical, but some will glaze over.
>   ... To reach the mission we need to communicate out in different
>   ways.
>   Daniel: I agree but still think clarity is a separate issue. The
>   issue of clarity is relevant no matter whether the doc is technical
>   or not. As people look at it, we can call out the pre-requisites of
>   technical expertise needed to understand specific content.
>   ... We added a glossary but maybe what we need to do is realize that
>   for eGov we need a Quick Guide for Execs or something.
>   Rachel: It is not that they need to understand how XML works, but
>   why it is important.
>   ... even when talking about tech issues, it must be presented in a
>   way that is clear.
>   ... it is sometimes difficult, but can be done. It takes time and a
>   level of understanding of tech issues as well.
>   ... I have volunteered to clarify language.
>   Sharron: Plain language must be part of our stated commitment.
>   Rachel: I agree.
>   Daniel: I suggest that we formalize it so that we have an editorial
>   committee and that the editors are not the writers. Because we have
>   different audiences, we should always have a nontech intro. Allow a
>   minimum amount of time that is standard to the publishing process.
>   Rachel: I agree, and propose two weeks out of any publication date.
>   Kevin: I agree.
>   Rachel: To summarize, then it seems that I can just jump in and work
>   on a rewrite of the current document?
>   Kevin: Yes, I could see us pulling out sertain sections. What you
>   are doing will give us a head start.
>   Rachel: I propose that we set up a two week window where no new
>   content is added and the current work goes for plain language
>   editorial review.
>   Daniel: And that we include a part of each paper to include content
>   in layman's terms.
>   Rachel: Yes, and I think we will find that it is more useful to
>   everyone.
>   Kevin: We want to make it readable but also for it to become a
>   resource for techies who need to translate to their own bosses.
>   Daniel: I have always felt strongly that that was one of our roles.
>   To translate W3C jargon and tech talk into language that folks can
>   understand.
>   Rachel: Yes, we are the bridge. If tech folks can not explain what
>   they are trying to do in language that lay people can understand, it
>   is less effective.
>   Daniel: Part of our next charter language could be to make that very
>   point.
>   Kevin: I agree and if you have a few minutes to add that to the
>   wiki, please do.
>   Rachel: I will start tackling pieces of the current document. How
>   shall I submit them?
>   Kevin: You could form small committee -
>   Rachel: I can send to the list and see who wants to serve on the
>   editorial board.
>   <Sharron> ACTION: Rachel to post to the EGov list for volunteers to
>   serve on the editorial board that she will lead. The purpose will be
>   to edit documents (beginning with current issue paper) for plain
>   language. [recorded in
>   [10]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-minutes.html#action02]
>   Kevin: About the Use Cases, part of the publishing process was
>   hurried and all of those did not get linked up and were not well
>   referenced within the document.
>   ... We need some review of the existng Use Cases and a way to link
>   them into the revised document.
>   Rachel: let me understand the process for submission of Use Cases.
>   They are developed by anyone in the group, submitted via the wiki,
>   reviewed and then - if accepted - a Use Case is then to be
>   integrated into final publication?
>   Kevin: Yes. At our first F2F we created Use Cases that we worked
>   from in developing the first issue paper. We did not actually link
>   them up as we had intended due to the haste of publication but still
>   need to do so.
>   Rachel: There were many use cases developed that got orphaned in the
>   process and so we are looking for ways to bring them back into our
>   work.
>   Kevin: Karen Myers, Jose and others spent phone time dealing with
>   how to communicate out. Jose and Karen are looking for resources
>   outside of the wiki to help us communicate out and keep the public
>   aware of what we are doing.
>   Rachel: Sounds good, thanks.
>   Kevin: Mission statement?
>   Daniel: One of the issues is that even putting it on the wiki people
>   don't know who they could be stepping on, etc. Perhaps it would be
>   most productive best to focus on one call where those interested can
>   hammer out a mission statement we can live with.
>   ... Are there people willing to spend the time to hash this out?
>   Kevin: If Rachel puts that call out perhaps we can use the charter
>   doc as their first task. Without having a Word doc circulating with
>   track changes.
>   Daniel: Yes, we could start the process right now.
>   Owen: I hesitate to raise this as it may may complicate. But would
>   we like to include a vision statement? That could help clarify
>   things since our current mission statement seems to contain a bit of
>   vision. Mission statement could focus on what we are actually and
>   the vision statement on where we would like to see the world.
>   Kevin: Good point. I told Jose that it seemed like a biz plan.
>   Especially if seeking funding it could be useful.
>   Owen: Stakeholders will care about goals.
>   Kevin: Yes, several potential participants struggle with where they
>   see themselves in this larger process.
>   ... last year we wrestled alot with where we were going, how to get
>   there.
>   Owen: Yes I look for where StratML relates. Current themes seem to
>   be goals. I will give it some thought.
>   Kevin: Goal is early July to submit Charter2. Can edit in the wiki.
>   Daniel: Are you saying if anyone has issues, post to the wiki by
>   next week, the editorial board can then take it on?
>   Kevin: Yes, then we can get it to W3C and get approved by Sept 1.
>   Daniel: Can we go through the deliverables?
>   ... it says we will build out the web site?
>   Kevin: Yes, I mentioned that we had talked with Karen.
>   ... the feedback from PR firm Edleman is that wiki is daunting and
>   we could present general info that is of interest to the public in a
>   more user friendly way.
>   Daniel: a portal?
>   Kevin: Yes, while we have several people comfortable on the wiki,
>   many need more ways to reach out.
>   Daniel: And this goal to achieve 100 media mentions...may not want a
>   number like that to be so public.
>   ... numbers are not always the most important way to measure good
>   outreach. May want to be more general "raise awareness through press
>   and other means"
>   Kevin: I'm fine with that.
>   Daniel: Can we put more emphasis on our role as a clearinghouse?
>   Open the resources and encourage agencies to use them.
>   ... I know data.gov is trying to do that for feds but we can help
>   state, local and international institutions do this internally.
>   Brand: Many people are uploading data.gov DB to Amazon cloud and
>   building apps.
>   Rachel: Also documenting best practices, sharing ideas like that
>   would be good.
>   Brand: will post his outreach to Congress members
>   Kevin: Tech standards seem to be contained in many discussions on
>   the Hill so awareness is increasing, which is good.
>   Brand: Ideas of semantic web are catching on, Tim should ask for
>   pilots to be created.
>   Kevin: Yes, I am hoping for it, although resources are in doubt.
>   Daniel: Plain language aside, sometimes marketing jargon like Web2.0
>   creates meaningless noise. As editorial board policy, we can define
>   those kinds of terms or coin our own.
>   ... I looked at Web standards and did not find Web 2.0
>   Rachel: Kevin, do you John and Jose have talking points?
>   Kevin: Informally we do, but karen and company are working on more
>   formal points.
>   Owen: Most do not know what Web2.0 is, but do know Twitter,
>   facebook, etc. Brand's point about prototypes is great to provide
>   something that we can use, kick the tires, etc.
>   Kevin: I have been asked to be more pointed.
>   Brand: Or we can take over the term Web 2.0 and define it
>   Kevin: I define it as widgets, distibution and sharing. Can we talk
>   about that as a beginning?
>   Owen: From my perspective, stovepipe of proprietary systems.
>   Daniel: Those attempting Web 2.0 would be wise to first meet Web 1.0
>   standards
>   Kevin: Agree that is critically important and opens so many other
>   doors.
>   Daniel: Put out a call?
>   Rachel: Yes I will do that.
>   Daniel: Add the section saying that all our documents will have
>   executive summary and that we have the two week editorial lead time.
>   Kevin: Edit wiki with any additional comments you may have about the
>   charter. Jose feels we need a strong focus on OGD and I agree that
>   we need to keep our finger on that pulse and make sure we are
>   contibuting to all of the issues.
>   Owen: Who are we doing the work for and who is doing the work
>   itself?
>   Kevin: Point you to the fact that we would continue the Task Force
>   model and encourage more activity. This time we want to make sure
>   that everyone knows what they are volunteering for
>   ... let's consider the structure.
>   Daniel: What were the faults?
>   Kevin: Lack of clarity of expectations of each Task Force (TF)
>   ... sub chairs of TF were so busy in day jobs often could not get
>   commitment from TF participants.
>   ... With more structure and task orientation, we can expect better
>   outcomes.
>   Owen: Or at least better understanding of what we can and can not
>   do.
>   Kevin: Yes that right too.
>   ... We will have the next call in two weeks. Hope to have feedback
>   on charter by then. Rachel will have editorial group together and
>   they will have two weeks to edit and resubmit.
>   <Sharron> ACTION: Rachel and volunteer editorial board will collect
>   comments from wiki and rewrite charter doc beginning on Jun 24 to
>   incorporate concepts discussed. [recorded in
>   [11]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-minutes.html#action03]
>   Daniel: Editorial board has 2 weeks but additional changes are still
>   possible if submitted to editorial board.
>   Rachel: From now on, everything we publish should go through the
>   editorial board two weeks before publication.
>   Kevin: I agree in general but once we get to point of submission to
>   W3C with our charter, it can not change.
>   If no further business we are adjourned. Need a scribe for next
>   time...
>   Rachel: I can do it.
> Summary of Action Items
>   [NEW] ACTION: Kevin - will post links related to recent activities
>   of federal Open Government Initiative. [recorded in
>   [12]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-minutes.html#action01]
>   [NEW] ACTION:Rachel to post to the EGov list for volunteers to serve
>   on the editorial board that she will lead. The purpose will be to
>   edit documents (beginning with current issue paper) for plain
>   language. [recorded in
>   [13]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-minutes.html#action02]
>   [NEW] ACTION:Rachel and volunteer editorial board will collect
>   comments from wiki and rewrite charter doc beginning on Jun 24 to
>   incorporate concepts discussed. [recorded in
>   [14]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-minutes.html#action03]
>   [End of minutes]
>     _________________________________________________________
>    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version 1.135
>    ([16]CVS log)
>    $Date: 2009/06/10 21:08:49 $
>     [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>     [16] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 07:46:26 UTC

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