Re: moving forward—with a plan

Hi guys

First of all, I think that the silence after Rubens's "revolting" post is 
somehow meaningful. Just few of us responded over a week or so.

Personally, I have no issue with not being directly involved in the 
development (while it might be a very inspiring and interesting experience 
in which I might be interested to participate in). I also doesn't see that 
there is no plan - Thomas pointed few bullet-points to start with.

I just have an issue with lack of point in all of these discussions - almost 
nothing got crafted into a spec. I started my POC server and client piece of 
code more than year ago to utilize Hydra in some real life scenarios 
(business applications and APIs), and honestly - all issues picked meanwhile 
feels somehow unaddressed by the spec prooving it to be still inmature.
Tom's pointings to "concurrent" solutions are not only his observations - I 
also reviewed solutions like Swagger or Json API as an alternatives. While 
these are completely un-RDF'ish (which I believe is the right way to go in 
case of API description and data exchange), but these seems more complex and 
mature ones.

Can we just decide quickly on how to proceed? I'm worried that this way we 
will end up with "stepping back to discuss on where to go next".

Sign me in to any activity that will move Hydra to a release candidate that 
may be used not only in the TPF (which I believe is the thing that forced 
Ruben to despair :)).

Regards

Karol

-----Oryginalna wiadomość----- 
From: Ruben Verborgh
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 7:31 PM
To: Tomasz Pluskiewicz
Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
Subject: Re: moving forward—with a plan

Hi Tom,

Just to add another perspective on this point:

>> We could see this as a sign we need to resurrect that thread, but I
>> doubt this is what's really needed. What I think we need is a
>> different way of managing the Hydra effort altogether. Perhaps we
>> need weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly calls. Perhaps we need a steering
>> committee or dedicated task force.
>
> I would not like to see Hydra go the way you propose. I fear the such
> cyclical meetings and some kind of task force would actually drive
> people away. This completely loses the openness and gives the impression
> that there is some closed group of dissidents pulling the strings. What
> we need is an open community which will contribute ideas and their needs.

There's a tension between openness and commitment,
and we need to find the right balance.

There would of course not be a closed group pulling strings.
Everybody would be free to join any initiative,
but efforts would require more commitment than others
(and commitment is something I think we need).

For instance, there could be a group of people
who commit to a bigger time investment,
such as participating in periodic calls, and hence,
also be able to influence the decision process more
because they are present at these meetings.
This does not seem unfair to me:
if you really care deeply about an issue,
you need to invest the time in it as well.

This would not change the openness of the community.
Also, this is the model typical W3C working groups follow.

Best,

Ruben

Received on Sunday, 22 May 2016 18:15:48 UTC