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

RE: New, Unified XG Proposal

From: Patrick Parslow <p.parslow@reading.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 21:57:12 -0000
Message-ID: <73A8370F9CBF034E8E5B1349323A096F258FDF@VIME-VS2.rdg-home.ad.rdg.ac.uk>
To: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>

Hi all,

	I have to agree that a single group seems unlikely to work, and that some form of network of groups is needed.  I am not sure a hierarchy of groups would work, as such, but two or three XGs with some common membership or a 'facilitation committee' to keep communication flowing might.

	I still think this would all have a greater impetus if we had set a deadline (much as I loathe deadlines) in the form of a follow up meeting before we started discussing what groups should be formed.  I believe this would also still be the best approach - set a date when there will be a face to face meeting (preferably a workshop) and then organise working groups to achieve realistic goals within that time frame.

Pat Parslow

-----Original Message-----
From: public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org [mailto:public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tim Anglade
Sent: 03 February 2009 20:06
To: public-social-web-talk@w3.org
Subject: Re: New, Unified XG Proposal

Hey Michael, thanks for meshing in.

Le 3 févr. 09 à 20:34, Michael Hausenblas a écrit :

> Tim, All,
> With all due respect, but a single XG will fail. I bet a good pint of
> Guinness on it (well, you need to come over here to Galway to  
> consume it,
> but that is another story).
> Why, you would ask?
> Simple: Too many people, too many topics. I've been active (actually  
> still
> active in one) in two XGs (Media Semantics and RDB2RDF) and I  
> *think* I know
> what I'm talking about.
> Though XGs are nice as they last only for a year, if you don't have a
> perfectly clear idea what you wanna do (that is, find out which  
> aspects are
> worth being standardised) then you'll end up in a debate club - and  
> we have
> already one such a group called DataPonderability or some such.

Yup, that's been my personal fear too. Don't shoot the messenger here.

A small group of us (Christine, Harry, Dom and I) was worried that the  
discussion was going to stall at the current pace on the mailing list  
and considering the votes and opinions expressed, it seemed to us that  
one way to avoid stalling and avoid (growing) overlap between the XGs,  
was to propose having a single, purely "umbrella" XG.

By then having several task forces inside that shell, working on very  
specific, focused deliverables, we figured we could probably alleviate  
the productivity concerns we all felt, such as those you just expressed.

After all, we can make those task forces and deliverables inside as  
precise as they need to be to ensure the efforts will go smoothly and  
will not dwindle into debate clubs - It's your job (and my job and  
everybody's job), to edit those descriptions to avoid that, a problem  
we can all try to tackle right now.

Or is even that two-tier XG/Task Force structure a doomed  
organizational view to start with, in your opinion and experience?

> As for me, fine, if you go for one - see you 6 March 2010 having a  
> Guinness
> which very likely I'm not gonna pay ;)

When it comes to beer, I don't drink anything less than a liter, so  
unless you're willing to get serious with your bet... ;)

- - - - - - -
Tim Anglade | directeur, pôle « Turbulences » | af83
42, boulevard de Sébastopol | 75003 Paris | France
1436, Howard St | San Francisco | CA 94103 | USA
Tel : +33 1 42 72 33 32
Mob : +33 6 35 92 77 58
skype : tim_anglade
Web : www.af83.com

This email is:  [X] bloggable   [ ] ask first   [ ] private

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1930 - Release Date: 2/2/2009 7:51 AM
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 21:59:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:51:47 UTC