Re: A GREAT week in India - but LOTS to do!

On 12/5/2017 00:20, r12a wrote:
> hi Alan,
>
> Sounds like you did some great work in India. Comments below.
>
> On 02/12/2017 10:25, J. Alan Bird wrote
>> Richard and Ralph - If we have needs for similar work around the 
>> Nordic languages then Shilpi would be interested in working with us.
>
> It would certainly be good to investigate whether the Nordic languages 
> listed at 
> https://w3c.github.io/typography/gap-analysis/language-matrix.html are 
> correctly represented, and fill in the blanks.
>
> Perhaps we could start with a preliminary review for those languages, 
> and then decide whether it's necessary to pull a TF together. For 
> that, we'd need some expert(s) who can run through the gap analysis 
> questionnaire and provide tentative responses.
So we should send a note / package to Shilpi and ask if she'll do that 
Gap Analysis for us - suspect she will!
>
>
>> At a meta level she sees us working with Microsoft in two ways.  
>> First if we can arm her with what would be needed to do a gap 
>> analysis she would get an intern or two to do that work under her 
>> guidance in Microsoft Research. 
>
>>  1. I need to work with Richard to have a presentation / document put
>>     together that says HOW we want a Gap Analysis done.  This should
>>     include where things would be kept (assume github) and what the
>>     review / qa process would be from this team.  I then need to send
>>     that to Kalika and Reverie (more on them below)
>>  2. WE need to decide how we want to manage the Gap Analysis for Indic
>>     Languages.  More on potential conflict below in Reverie notes.
>

> I wouldn't want to see MS doing things separately from the Indic TF we 
> are already setting up. I can't see that working.
Sorry I wasn't clear.  We need them to be a part of the programme and I 
think Kalika is ready to do that.  What we as a team need to figure out 
is what languages do we have MSFT do vs. which do we have Reverie do.
>
> We could have separate gap analysis documents and lreq documents per 
> script, but there are various commonalities across various 
> permutations of script (and therefore language) which should be 
> leveraged by having all the work done under the one Indic TF umbrella.
+1 and that's the conversation I had with both Kalika and Reverie.
>
> I think we also need to be careful not to immediately bite off more 
> than we can chew. To do this properly, there's a fair bit of work 
> involved per language. I suggest that we start out with a carefully 
> picked selection of scripts (there's a suggestion in the charter) and 
> the languages we want to tackle related to those. Then working on 
> those we can gain experience that will help bring on the others 
> quickly at a later date.
Agree, but don't want to necessarily dictate that priority as I believe 
the in-country experts can best tell us where the low hanging fruit is 
if there is any.
>
> For a first draft of the process involved, see 
> https://github.com/w3c/typography/wiki/Setting-up-a-Gap-Analysis-Project
will look at that later today - thanks!
>
> *Please take a look at that and let me know what i'm missing.*
>
>
>> They are extremely reluctant to work too closely with any "big 
>> company" as they haven't had great experiences doing that.  This 
>> means we need to carefully define what do we give to them vs. what we 
>> give to MSFT vs. what we give to e-sahitya.  The next steps with them 
>> are:
>>
>>   * Get the technical package to them
>>   * Define who gets what languages and leadership
>
> We really don't want to have competing work going on, and what work we 
> do do needs to get buy in from as many experts as possible, and reuse 
> as much of the synergetic outcomes as possible - and there should be 
> many of those when dealing with Indian languages. So i can't really 
> see a scenario that lets us split up the work into discrete TFs.
>
> I don't know what bad experiences they have had before, but perhaps we 
> can explain that the initial bulk of work to be done is just to 
> describe what does and doesn't work, and how it should work from a 
> non-technology-specific pov. There shouldn't be a competitive or 
> threatening environment because we're not implementing any technology 
> - we're forming a local community that represents their needs to the 
> spec writers and application implementers.
What they said was that while  they've tried to work with companies 
before they found them slow, cumbersome and in some case credit stealing.
>
> Alolita, Abhijit, do you have any insights here?
>
>> What feels like a tactical implementation might be this notion of a 
>> "task force" for each language where an in-country individual from 
>> e-sahitya, C-DAC, MSFT or Reverie drives the first step Gap Analysis 
>> so we know how big of a problem we're trying to solve.
>
> We set up the new Indic charter to be the TF that coordinates all the 
> work, and leverages the synergies between the various languages and 
> experts in India.  If we have multiple TFs, we'll need multiple 
> charters, chairs, and admin overheads, and we'll lose out on the 
> potential synergies across indic scripts.
So we need a more granular level of "teaming" to occur under the big 
picture programme where we have a point person responsible for a 
language or set of related languages.
>
> What we certainly CAN do, however, is have separate gap-analysis 
> documents and lreq documents for separate scripts, within the one TF 
> chaired by Alolita and Abhijit.  Would that work?
>
>> a call on my Wednesday night so it would look something like this:
>>
>>   * Richard - 1500
>
> wfm
Great!  Rest of team - is this good for you?
>
>
> ri

-- 
J. Alan Bird
W3C Global Business Development Leader
office +1 617 253 7823  mobile +1 978 335 0537
abird@w3.org   twitter @jalanbird

Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2017 00:36:14 UTC