Re: Position papers / workshop Re: FSW CG now has 100 members

Melvin's got a point. If this group is to create the standards of the new,
freer more friendly access to your own data; we should begin with a
thourough analysis of today's de facto standard, Facebook.

Including them, asking them to teach it will lead either to collaboration
or story worthy dissent; either of which will aid in the move to create the
new standard.

I personally have no fault with Facebook; however; it is a worthy platform
that got all of the people; the next one, though,  the next one wow...
fossil fuels, either, honestly. Human race is like that commercial, like
fine wines, as it gets older, it gets better, technology, anyway.

Afterwards, building a competitive analysis of the features, as defined by
the standard of Facebook through the social networking services and
CMS's... very similar in function to me-- I have a template; perhaps we can
merge it with the list from W3's wiki? I'm sure people have others as well.

I don't really understand the s on the end of Systems.

System- Cy- stem the digital storage of the Human race.

I like that better.


On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On 1 July 2013 21:24, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote:
>
>> Michiel B. de Jong:
>> > On 2013-07-01 08:51, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
>> >> I noticed that the Program Committee for that workshop mostly
>> >> consists of people who do not seem to be active in the Federated
>> >> Social Web community.
>> >
>> > i do not agree there Andreas, although maybe there are multiple
>> > "bubbles" of active people, and we are probably in a more European
>> > bubble.
>>
>> I am not that much concerned about a different geographical "bubble".
>> But I think that the workshop "bubble" has somewhat different interests
>> and priorities. That definitely is legitimate.
>>
>> But if that workshop decides about future activities to be implemented
>> by the W3C then those decisions are unlikely to adequately reflect the
>> views of the members of the Federated Social Web Community Group. And
>> that would not help to strengthen the Open Social Web.
>>
>
> Ah, I see.  I had presumed that Harry's workshop was in collaboration with
> this group.  It seems to be a separate thing in itself.  Thanks for
> pointing that out.
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andreas
>>
>>
>