W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-social-web-talk@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Invited expert - Change of policy?

From: Benjamin Nguyen <benjie.nguyen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:09:23 +0200
Message-ID: <fa43c8ea0904070309o3b333adct8017b71bf32436dd@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-social-web-talk@w3.org" <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>

I'd support keeping the number of lists to the minimum, having just a
*public* list would be fine for me. I feel the only difficulty is if
there are 50 people on the telecon, but I doubt that is actually going
to happen.


University of Versailles

2009/4/7 Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au> wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2009, at 10:54, Harry Halpin wrote:
>>> The solution is simple: Everyone becomes an "Invited Expert" and agrees
>>> to the XG Charter policy.
>>> However, this would require everyone who participates in the public
>>> list-serv or who speaks at the telecon to sign up to be an Invited Expert
>>> first, and would require explicit banning of everyone who does not sign up
>>> as an Invited Expert from the list-serv. That sort of list-serv and telecon
>>> does not seem very public or open to me.
>> No, that is not what I said Harry. Nobody is banned from anything ;-)
> However, this would prevent interaction with companies or people who for
> some reason or another may not be comfortable or have time to sign up to be
> an Invited Expert. This may include people from major social networking hubs
> or smaller sites or community efforts who just want to dip their toes in,
> and would prevent cross-posting and so interaction with the wider Social Web
> community.
> Since W3C groups usually have a public list and a member-only list, and
> interaction with both public and member-only lists are both taken
> seriously,  I am pretty sure there isn't an actual legal issue here,
> especially as XGs just look at future standardization but do not actually
> make standards, unlike the HTML5 WG. If there is an actual legal issue at
> hand, Renato, you should clarify and bring up previous experience
> explicitly, and we can run the possibility by a legal expert.
> More likely, it's an operational issue. In particular, whether or not
> someone should have to fill out both forms (W3C account and Invited Expert
> status) before joining the "public" list or not. It seems de-facto, at least
> according to usual W3C terminology, that then that list would be a
> *member-only* list, not a "public" list. Is there any reason why such a list
> would be called "public" rather than "member-only"?
> I am happy to have a member-only list that uses Renato's procedure and a
> public list that doesn't. I see no reason why we should not have a public
> list where the general public, who may not have W3C accounts and may not
> fill out the form for whatever reason. The question is where should most of
> the work take place, and the charter currently says the public list.  Again,
> would like to hear the opinions of more people in the group and would like
> to hear more about the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.
>> It's very simple....instead of the public sending an email to
>> "public-xg-socialweb-request@w3.org" and *bypassing* the Charter Policy,
>> they simply fill in a form (name, email, company), click the "agree" check
>> box" and they auto-join both lists.
>> The advantage of this is that everyone is "equal" - there will be no
>>  questions like "are you an invited expert?" or "just a public participant?"
>> when discussing contributions towards deliverables.
>> BTW, the HTML WG has 255 Invited Experts and followed the same process.
>> Currently, the public needs to fill in this form to get a W3C account:
>>  <http://www.w3.org/Help/Account/Request/Public>
>> Then fill in this form to join the XG:
>>  <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/ieapp/>  (Note: W3C account need to
>> access this URL)
>> Perhaps W3C can streamline that into one simpler form?
>> Cheers...  Renato Iannella
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 10:10:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:51:48 UTC