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

Re: Invited expert - Change of policy?

Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:32:16 +0200
To: "public-social-web-talk@w3.org" <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF38F04437.A6CB125B-ONC1257591.00392558-C1257591.0039E2FA@EliLilly.lilly.com>
Hi all,

I'm new to this kind of W3C participation but I'd strongly agree with
Benjamin to get things more focussed in smaller groups/lists; definitely
for the telcon sessions.
In the meantime, the public list follows the common rules of the W3C
serving as an extra broader, open and diverse discussion forum from which
valuable and active experts still can be selected ... (?)
Does that make sense?

 Hans CONSTANDT MCIE                                                          
 iDIT Senior Business Consultant                                              
 "Discovery consists of looking at the                                        
 same thing as everyone else and                                              
 thinking something different" Albert                                         

             Benjamin Nguyen                                               
             ail.com>                                                   To 
             Sent by:                  "public-social-web-talk@w3.org"     
             public-social-web         <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>     
             -talk-request@w3.                                          cc 
                                       Re: Invited expert - Change of      
             04/07/2009 12:09          policy?                             


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>
>> 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
>>> first, and would require explicit banning of everyone who does not sign
>>> as an Invited Expert from the list-serv. That sort of list-serv and
>>> 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
> an Invited Expert. This may include people from major social networking
> 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
> 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
> status) before joining the "public" list or not. It seems de-facto, at
> 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
> 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
> the work take place, and the charter currently says the public list.
> would like to hear the opinions of more people in the group and would
> 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"
>> 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
>> 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 12:57:42 UTC

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