Re: re-starting, and moving to Community Group?

Hi Lynn (and Everyone) --
Actually, it seems to me there may be overlap between the "Social" group and the "Social Economy" group [1]... the former being more focused on defining the use cases and functionality needed for social interactions, and the latter being focused on the "economy" aspects.  
Even though the Social Economy group has languished, I bet there is a lot we can glean from that work. At the least, let's document it! I know there are several participants (besides you, Lynn), who are signed up in both groups. And maybe there are others who would be interested in the overlap.
To me, this is a big reason to move this work to a Community Group -- to welcome all contributions and participants, and bring together some of the perhaps less-obvious ideas.  In so doing, I hope we can make this work as inclusive for the whole world as possible.
  -- Ann
Ann Bassetti

[1] https://www.w3.org/community/economy/ 

 

    On Friday, April 1, 2016 10:52 AM, Lynn Foster <foster.j.lynn@gmail.com> wrote:
 

 Hi Ann and all,

Good to hear from you!  As at least Ann knows, I'm more interested in the Social Economy group, being focused on the next-economy piece of the puzzle, and not even belonging to Facebook.  :)  But we in the Social Economy CG haven't been doing anything either.  

Anyhow I'd be happy to participate in a call to think about it all, if you decide to have one. No travel for me, sorry.

Lynn

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Lloyd Fassett <lloyd@azteria.com> wrote:

I was thinking of seeing if there's interest in extending the use cases to users.  The one I remember is the Farmer's Market.  In that case, is the person that suggested it in touch with the manager of a Farmer's Market that has any resources in time or money to implement the work?  Actually go over the use case from a non-technical point of view.  
It kept looking like we had businesses that were using the data internally by not interoperably between businesses.  Even at Boeing, the use case seemed to be sharing profiles between apps within the business, but not between external organizations and Boeing.
The suggestion is really about extending the use cases to Users to encourage interoperability between businesses without regard for the technology.  It would also help technical oriented people to keep checking their assumptions about Use Cases and where resistance to adoption will or does come from.
The Indie Web Camp sounds great too.  That's easier to go to since it's Sat / Sun. I'm jiggy with going to that event, maybe in addition to the Tue/Wed W3C meeting.
Lloyd FassettAzteria Inc.
Bend, OR 
(541) 848-2440 (PST)
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Ann Bassetti <ann.bassetti@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Lloyd!
I think your first question ("Is there a externally focused role for developing an ecosystem of participating companies?") gets to the crux of it ... what would we do? what do we need? anything? how to attract more participation? who's ideas are we missing?
The Social Web WG is meeting in Portland on June  7 & 8. I plan to attend, but I am a member of that group.  If you or any other IG folks want to meet, I love to do that!  

Also, there will be an Indie Web Camp on the preceding weekend, that is open to all -- maybe that would be a good opportunity?  (I also plan to attend that event.)  http://indiewebcamp.com/2016

Thanks for the quick response!  -- Ann

 

    On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 12:11 PM, Lloyd Fassett <lloyd@azteria.com> wrote:
 

 I'd be in for a conference call.  My initial thoughts are:
   
   - Is there a externally focused role for developing an ecosystem of participating companies?  
   - Is the Portland, OR face-to-face still on the agenda for this summer?  Perhaps that's a good place to exchange information and focus efforts.

Lloyd
Lloyd FassettAzteria Inc.
Bend, OR 
(541) 848-2440 (PST)
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Ann Bassetti <ann.bassetti@yahoo.com> wrote:

Greetings Social Web Interest Group!
After my hiatus (due to retiring from Boeing and getting my feet "on the ground"), I am back. I hope you are all well and thriving, doing interesting things. 

I would like to suggest we re-start our Interest Group, although in a slightly different form -- as a Community Group (CG). 

My logic is: 

A) despite good effort, we struggled somewhat since the beginning to find a truly useful role; 

B) our originally chartered tasks were somewhat subsumed by the WG; 

C) yet, we have quite a few great use cases documented which we should not lose (and which need to be re-written with better high-level summaries;
D) there may be use cases out there in the world we haven't thought about... having a Community Group enables anyone who wants to contribute to do so, without having to be a W3C member nor an Invited Expert.
There is already a "Federated Social Web Community Group" (https://www.w3.org/community/fedsocweb/) -- the precursor to the creation of the WG and IG. I'm not sure if it's better to adopt that CG (if Evan and Andreas want to release it!), or if it's better to start a new one.
If we start a new CG, I need at minimum a couple other folks to start it with me.  Also we need to write a brief statement about our goals and intentions, and decide how often to meet, etc. Here's the description of Community Groups:  https://www.w3.org/community/about/faq/

 Anyone else interested? If yes, I suggest we have a telecon to discuss options and directions.  If not, no worries; we'll let it go.
I look forward to hearing reactions and ideas.
Best regards -- Ann
Ann Bassetti