Re: Will your Community Group meet during TPAC 2016?

On 1 April 2016 at 00:17, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@apple.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> I really like seeing the interest and Dan's suggestions!
>
> And I personally like the idea of having 2 half-days instead of 1 entire day. This could really help some people already booked on just one of those days to attend the other day.
>
> @Danbri, given the fact that "Digital Publishing has requested Monday/Tuesday", do you want to go head and make an official request for Thursday/Friday mornings before it's too late? (hopefully it's still ok) Then we'll have to make it real :-)

I've filed a request, however it appears from the form that the
expectation is that each CG only gets one 2h slot. Ours would be
mid-morning Thurs, but I have enquired about more, on the basis that
there are many schema.org-related CGs with overlapping interests. Will
follow up in this thread as I hear more.

Dan


> Best,
> Alexandre
>
>
>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 6:54 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On 30/03/2016 09:23 , Dan Brickley wrote:
>>> From a broader W3C perspective, having Community Groups involved at
>>> TPAC is a very positive thing. At the Chairs Breakfast meeting during
>>> last year's TPAC I argued for greater inclusion of Community Group
>>> chairs and participants within W3C activities. There are now a large
>>> number of CGs across many topics, and everything we can do to
>>> encourage grassroots coordination and communication amongst these
>>> groups, and between these groups and the more heavyweight full Working
>>> Groups is super valuable.
>>
>> While I very well understand the hesitations of those who already have
>> their TPAC week well booked, as well as the issues inherent in not
>> having everyone in the room, I think there would be great value in
>> meeting for TPAC.
>>
>> Discussing things in the meeting does not preclude discussion in the GH
>> tracker; it just means that whatever comes out of the discussion we need
>> to make sure is properly summarised in the relevant issues. Being able
>> to work things out face to face can be very helpful.
>>
>> This can also be a great opportunity to reach out to other groups and
>> people on a variety of topics where we connect. I don't think that a
>> RDFa-versus-Microdata-versus-Microformats discussion is of any use to
>> this group, but a few of us could chat to the HTML people about it. The
>> bib people could talk to DPUB, etc. TPAC is as much about meeting in the
>> group as it is about meeting outside the group.
>>
>>> * I'd suggest (without having yet consulted the other CG chairs) that
>>> a single TPAC CG meeting around schema.org would be preferable to
>>> having 10+ different meetings for the various schema.org-related CGs
>>> listed above
>>> * That the spirit of the event is "for those who are attending TPAC
>>> anyway, or quite likely to for other reasons", rather than "A
>>> must-attend meeting for anyone involved at schema.org"
>>> * It looks like the offer to CGs is that we can have (several?) 2h
>>> meeting slots. I'd suggest we do something like a couple of mornings
>>> (2x 2 slots) if available, one focussed on specific schema topics, the
>>> other on broader issues that take advantage of likely attendees e.g.
>>> publisher/webmaster experience with these technologies, or the
>>> relationship between microdata/rdfa/json-ld with Web Components.
>>
>> Agreed on all of the above.
>>
>> --
>> • Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>> • http://science.ai/ — intelligent science publishing
>> •
>

Received on Saturday, 2 April 2016 17:33:39 UTC