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

[minutes] eGov IG call, 6 May 2009

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 19:24:58 +0200
Message-Id: <26F61ADC-2236-4BF3-9CA3-91A64D115756@w3.org>
To: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
All,

Available at:

   http://www.w3.org/2009/05/06-egov-minutes

and as text below.

Thanks very much to Sharron for scribing today. We go ahead with  
publication on May 12. Please note that I forgot to record the  
resolution on IRC, so I've added it manually to the minutes at:

   http://www.w3.org/2009/05/06-egov-minutes#pubnote

Sorry about that and thanks again Sharron for a fantastic meeting  
record.
Jose.

---------------------------------

    [1]W3C

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

                               - MINUTES -

                eGovernment Interest Group Teleconference

06 May 2009

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/06-egov-irc

Attendees

    Present
           John, Josema, Owen, Rachel, Sahrron, Ken, Daniel, DaveMc

    Regrets
           Suzanne, Kevin

    Chair
           John

    Scribe
           Sharron, Josema

AGENDA

     1. [3]Open Issues for publication of document - discuss issues and
        actions that remain open.
     2. [4]Improving Access to Government through Better Use of the Web
        - approve publication schedule.

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/
       [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/egov-improving/

Contents

      * [5]Topics
      *
          1. [6]Discuss Open Issues #2, #4, #17, #30
          2. [7]Publishing Schedule Discussion and approval
          3. [8]Open Issues #30, #34, #35, #36
          4. [9]Summary and discuss any additional concerns
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Discuss Open Issues #2, #4, #17, #30

    open issues: [11]http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/issues/open

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/issues/open

    Jose: Open issues , we can go through them and some are connected to
    open actions for publishing the document.

    John: OK, let's go through them one by one, starting with Issue 2,
    item 55

    Jose: It is still pending and without Kevin on the call, we can't do
    much.

    John: Issue 4 is still open and is on me. You should have in
    minutes/hours Jose, from me

    <josema> [ISSUE-2: kevin working on it]

    <josema> [ISSUE-4: john to send text today]

    John Issue-17 is next

    Daniel: I sent final edits to Jose based on the last set of
    suggestions re: Issue 17, safe to play

    <josema> [ISSUE-17: daniel just sent section text with safe to play
    comments added]

    Jose: I will review and try to integrate. Were you able to address
    Malcolm's concerns?

    Daniel: I did not adopt the exact language he submitted but did
    incorporate his ideas, especially about citizens not being
    overwhelmed, avoiding phishing, having confidence in systems.
    ... addressed role of govt identity and authentication, so I think
    it meets the concerns that were raised.

    Jose: Daniel...is any way to identify and review the new text?

    Daniel: On Google docs you can look at revision history which will
    highlight changes and compare to previous.

    John: Issue 22, examples of participation and engagement...

    Daniel: I have offered to add paragraph or two...will get it in
    today.

    <josema> [ISSUE-22: daniel to review in a few hours time]

    [Issue 22 Daniel to submit today]

    John: Kevin and Suzanne have been reviewing and revising the doc.

    Rachel: Do you still need help with plain language?

    John: I don't know. Are we there yet? nearly there?

    <josema> [12]Editor's Draft

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/Group/docs/note

    Rachel: Introduction is snapshot where good talking points should
    be...we seem to be getting there, I am happy to help.
    ... shall I touch base with Kevin?

    John: The more we can edit , focus and polish the intro the better
    it will be for the whole doc.

    <josema> +1

    Rachel: I am ready to help, tho have been very busy recently

    John: Having read others things you've written, Rachel, you would be
    good at that.

    Rachel: Tahnks most people are taught to write too much.

    Daneil: If you can distill the into, perhaps distill to a single
    tweet.

    Rachel; Yes we need that

    <josema> that would be interesting to see

    Sharron: Defintely need clear language

    Jose: All of this is needed by tomorrow.

    John: Issue-30 comments of EOWG

    Jose: It was good to recieve their comments and they have been
    useful. Wish there was more time to coordinate with all the W3
    groups and expect to do that in future draft. We agreed to put
    comments into editor's draft verbatim.
    ... slight wording changes as draft has continued to be edited. But
    not significant changes. One issue was that Judy Brewer had raised
    about plain language etc.
    ... EO would like to see another draft, but time does not allow
    since it is in constant revision. It is not possible with the time
    involved.

    Sharron: I was at EO meeting Friday, I reported that there would not
    be another draft and suggested that folks watch the draft in
    progress and comment.

    Jose: I told Judy that if she had further comments, we would need to
    hear from her by yesterday.
    ... eGov IG expects that while this is not perfect, it will be good
    and as we go forward we will continue to improve.

    John: Need to be aware that while we can't do the perfect thing, we
    need to do a useful thing and take a step forward. I endorse Jose
    view that if we feel we have an insightful, useful document and that
    we have given our best shot within our constraints of time and
    volunteer effot, we should go forward. It is an important decesion.

    <davemc> +1, if carefully positioned correctly

Publishing Schedule Discussion and approval

    Sharron: If any way possible, I would suggest a delay of even just a
    few days for review and consensus about narrative flow.

    John: What are the publishing timelines and why do they exist?

    Jose: May 21 was deadline set in coordination with Obama memo.
    ... we decided to adopt that as our deadline as well. OSTP needs at
    least a week to review our work to see how it relates.
    ... documents can only be published at W3C on Tu Th with one day
    notice. So we were targeting the 12th. Which means we had to
    complete it by the 8th. Since I have to convert to HTML and test
    through W3C protocols I need another day. So to meet these deadlines
    I need all text by tomorrow.
    ... Of course, we can change it, but it has been discussed and our
    group decided to try to meet that deadline.

    John: Yes, I just wanted to review the opportunity and re-examine
    the need to produce something to make best use of that opportunity.
    ... the core issue is whether the work we have (with the expectation
    of the work still in progress) will meet the goal of producing
    something useful and meet the opportunity to coordinate with the
    OSTP?
    ... I think being in the right place at the right time is important.
    This document may not be the perfect thing but we have produced
    soemthing that has utility and that I have not seen anywhere else. I
    am happy and confident to have my name associated with this.

    Ken: ; So being able to participate in the broader national
    conversation is important.

    Daniel: Yes we will miss opportunities if we put it off.

    Daniel: we have a great compendium of information in this one
    document that addresses egovernment issues adequately if not
    perfectly.

    <Owen> I think the test that John mentioned, i.e., that he would
    like to have his name associated with the draft, is a good one.

    <Owen> I'm not sure I could make the same assertion because I
    haven't seen the latest draft.

    John: Rachel, from your persepective how close do you think it is?

    <davemc> +1 Owen

    <josema> Owen, latest draft is always up at:
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/Group/docs/note

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/Group/docs/note

    <davemc> Would like to review a near-final.

    <josema> right now it only misses "new" Daniel's text

    Rachel: Personally I always try to meet the deadlines I set and I
    agree with caution that while it is not perfect, it is better to put
    it out there and open for broader opinion.

    <Owen> Thanks for the clarification, Jose. My impression was that
    the latest draft was not yet sharable.

    John: We have learned a big lesson that trying to cover EVERYTHING
    about egov in one document may not have been the wisest thing. We
    may not want to say it in the document, but among ourselves, we can
    plan for a greater number of more focussed, polished pieces.

    <davemc> still concerned about negative references.

    John: The next 24 hours must get us to a draft that is sharable.

    <josema> dave, *please* tell me where you spot some

    Owen: We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We
    should put it out there for further comment.

    <davemc> Management of contents that cannot be showed in a mobile
    device, have a large size very costly to download and memory
    consuming (images, PDF documents).

    <davemc> I think iPhone, RIM show the opposite

    RESOLUTION: publish Note on May 12

Open Issues #30, #34, #35, #36

    John: I think we can safely close Issue-30
    ... and look at Issue-34 raised by Judy. We talked about this one
    and have gone a long way toward addressing it.

    Jose: I remember that Judy proposed to have accessibility as a
    headline topic that would show in the table of contents and at this
    point we have two.
    ... most of sections include at least some accessibility references.

    Sharron: The most recent document that I reviewed does a good job of
    separating accessibilty for PWD and access to government by all
    citizens.

    <Owen> Having just scanned the latest draft, I'm not sure I could
    agree this statement is true: Government agencies in the United
    States use the term voluntary consensus standards according to
    [US-OMB119].

    <josema> [ISSUE-30 and ISSUE-34 can then be closed]

    John: Let's move on to Issue-35
    ... Jose, is that the best way for us to proceed? close Issue-34?

    <Owen> It has been two years since I retired, but when I left
    goverment, the prevailing definition of "standard" was a personal
    proprietary product preference (P4).

    Jose: I heard from Sharron that accessibility is well covered, so
    yes.

    John: As long as we have on the record that we have considered,
    discussed and concluded that it is sufficiently addressed, then we
    can close it.

    <Owen> P4 + the political power to impose upon others (P6IO)

    <Owen> correction P6IOU

    Jose: So Issue-35 is about the comments from BSA. We have a lawyer
    at W3C who has advised about the difference between open source and
    open standards.
    ... I think we are good on that front because we have recognized
    various interpretations of terms, Europe/US differences, etc. BSA
    wants a distinction made and wants no endorsement in this document
    for open standards.

    <Owen> correction to correction P6IUO

    Jose: Have others reviewed the comments? We should be clear about
    our meaning and should not have endorsements.

    Daniel: There is section after Open Standards called Open Source
    Solutions...?
    ... That language could be cleaned up to say whenever possible
    document models should be based on open standards whether open
    source or proprietary.

    <davemc> that's a can of worms.

    Owen: An important distinction needs to be made between open data
    and open software. The open data is most important.

    Daniel: I will tweek the language to be very neutral.

    John: Issue-36 is next.

    Daniel: Yes this one is mine I put this out on the National Dialogue
    but got some blowback. It may be too soon for this idea. We can
    close this one.

Summary and discuss any additional concerns

    John: Any other issues that we can address that have not yet?

    Daniel: Or issues that still need to be raised?

    Jose: Issue 2 is still open pending receipt of new text; 15 the
    same; 17 have the text and need to integrate; 35 agreed but must
    respond to BSA and see if it acceptable to them; 36 closed; Rachel
    offered help with Issue 24

    Rachel: Yes I am working on it right now.

    <davemc> Thank you

    Rachel: I will have it to you at the end of the day today.

    Jose: Kevin is writing an Exec Summary. So we will have Intro,
    Background, Abstract, Status of Document...many sections that are
    summary sections
    ... maybe should coordinate with Kevin. We have many sections that
    deal with the same general thing.

    John: In the next 24 hours we should be able to close all the issues
    if everyone does what they have said.

    <davemc> I may have missed it.. what is the resolution on "open data
    and open software" ?

    Jose: Many issues were left from the F2F meeting

    <davemc> focus on open data, I hope

    <josema> yes

    <davemc> ty

    <Owen> I believe the "Semantics" paragraph would be improved by
    appending this sentence: Toward that end, it would be beneficial to
    publish on the Web in readily sharable, referenceable format the
    names and definitions of elements currently being used, regardless
    of the scope of agreement that has been achieved.

    Sharron: Glossary will be submitted in HTML format by EOD today

    Jose: Personally not sure if I can work on document tomorrow but
    will make final edits Friday and send to list.
    ... first thing Saturday will send message to webmaster.

    John: Good to have a window to review glossary, etc

    Jose: Do you have additional concerns, Owen?

    Owen: OMB policy and reality around standards is different.
    ... wording currently in draft is incorrect.
    ... also in semantics paragraph, I disagree that goal is shared
    semantics. Rather provide definitions of elements currently being
    used, regardless of the scope of agreement that has been achieved.
    ... can do better by sharing our own semantics in readily sharable
    format like XML

    <davemc> but not limited to XML.

    Jose: Am marking document within sections you refer to. Didn't you
    have email exchanges about that?

    Owen: Yes we had put placeholders in the draft.
    ... current wording is not correct. OMB circular directs agencies to
    use voluntary consesus standards
    ... but it is not correct to say that is what they ARE doing.

    Jose: I can make those changes.

    John: Another case where even if not in complete agreement, better
    to publish what you mean.

    Owen: With those changes, I am happy to have my name on this doc.

    John: Any other actions to cover today?
    ... Then let's take the next 7 minutes and apply them to our tasks.
    OK?

    All: Yes

    <davemc> +1

    John: Thanks for all this work on what will be an important and
    useful document. We are adjourned.

    <josema> [ADJOURNED]

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [14]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([15]CVS log)
     $Date: 2009/05/06 17:15:21 $

      [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 17:25:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 May 2009 17:25:55 GMT