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

Re: New, Unified XG Proposal

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:02:25 +0000
To: Tim Anglade <tim.anglade@af83.com>, <dom@w3.org>
CC: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C5AE7D81.18A5%michael.hausenblas@deri.org>

Tim,

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

Looking at the report [1] - btw, Dom, why was the report not posted to
*this* list? :) - which is probably the only tangible thing people
interested  in the topics at hand have (at least people not have been able
to join the workshop in Barcelona), I'd suggest a radical solution:

Obviously, there are a couple of issues which have been identified. Why not
create one XG per identified issue? An XG is cheap. IIRC like three W3C
member supporting it, requested and expected W3C team effort close to 0, a
chair (I guess it is possible to find three people to chair, lemme count:
Christine, Harry, and you ... yes, makes three; in case you need a fourth
one, I'd chime in) and a sharp focus. For example, a core of a charter could
be 'what privacy mechanisms are available and what is missing, what can or
should be standardised'.

Dunno if that helps, but I promise you that I'll contribute heavily if I
find stuff like this around. Otherwise I'm inclined to reallocate my time
budget.

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

1 liter? You call *this* serious? Let's say: one per XG ;D

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/msnws/report

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan,
Galway, Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://sw-app.org/about.html


> From: Tim Anglade <tim.anglade@af83.com>
> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 21:05:40 +0100
> To: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: New, Unified XG Proposal
> Resent-From: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:06:16 +0000
> 
> 
> 
> 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 ³umbrella² 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 betŠ ;)
> 
> - - - - - - -
> 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
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 23:03:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:10 GMT