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

RE: New, Unified XG Proposal

From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:16:51 +0100
To: "'Krishna Sankar \(ksankar\)'" <ksankar@cisco.com>
Cc: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A3109F7C95B24923BC575B6FC7C5E449@T60>

Hi Krishna,

Thank you for your proposal to work on the project and your suggestion of a
phased approach. 

I feel (as I believe you expressed) that focusing in the near term need not
ignore/exclude the potential future areas of study.

You wrote:
c)	Most probably it will be a little rough and anemic participation in
the beginning - but if we, as founding members, contribute enough to
generate a critical mass, then I am sure the TFs will gather momentum.  

I'm entirely of this opinion (and in my experience it works if/when the
founding team is dedicated and their work is good) but, out of respect for
those who have more experience in this (W3C) structure than I, I get the
feeling that this is counter to standard W3C process. 

Christine

-----Original Message-----
From: public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Krishna Sankar
(ksankar)
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 9:07 PM
To: Karl Dubost; Fabien Gandon
Cc: public-social-web-talk@w3.org
Subject: RE: New, Unified XG Proposal


Agreed. We can look at a document-centric approach to focus the discussions
as well as pragmatic deliverables. 

Would be happy to edit/co-edit work in Privacy and Trust TF and (possibly)
contribute to the architecture TF. Don't know if it is the right protocol
(i.e. add directly to the wiki), but I have added my names to the docs I
would be interested in. Am open to changes as we get more commitment. 

Some quick points:

a)	We might not need to work on all documents simultaneously - quality
before quantity.
b)	I think, one use case and one best practices document, per TF, might
be sustainable than the current 4 docs. I assume there is some logic behind
the distribution
c)	Most probably it will be a little rough and anemic participation in
the beginning - but if we, as founding members, contribute enough to
generate a critical mass, then I am sure the TFs will gather momentum.  

Cheers
<k/>

|-----Original Message-----
|From: public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org [mailto:public-social-web- 
|talk-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Karl Dubost
|Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 11:38 AM
|To: Fabien Gandon
|Cc: public-social-web-talk@w3.org
|Subject: Re: New, Unified XG Proposal
|
|
|
|Le 8 févr. 2009 à 13:52, Fabien Gandon a écrit :
|> My opinion is that there is material here for several XG having their 
|> own telecons. Now if we were to go for one XG with several TFs I 
|> would very strongly recommend having one cycle of telecons per TF 
|> i.e. each TF should have at least its own monthly telecon.
|
|There is maybe another way to start this. Being very practical.
|The [description][1] for each task force have empty boxes for 
|deliverables.
|
|1. Let's have quantifiable deliverables.
|2. Align at least two editors for each deliverables. (one writing, one
|reviewing)
|3. An editor can edit one and only deliverable. (to avoid the workload 
|delaying others) 4. The editor will spend half a day to one full day a 
|week on that work.
|
|Volunteers for which documents?
|
|
|Rationale: if we have plenty of editors and people that will be 
|workable, if people are midly able to commit to this, we will have nice 
|discussions but we will not achieve a lot.
|
|
|[1]: http://esw.w3.org/topic/UnifiedSocialXG
|
|
|--
|Karl Dubost
|Montréal, QC, Canada
|http://twitter.com/karlpro
|
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 09:17:35 GMT

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