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

Re: New, Unified XG Proposal

From: Miquel Martin <miquel.martin@nw.neclab.eu>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:02:53 +0100
Message-ID: <4991890D.1040306@nw.neclab.eu>
To: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
CC: "'Krishna Sankar (ksankar)'" <ksankar@cisco.com>, public-social-web-talk@w3.org

Hi all,
I've been sitting back a bit while this debate unfolds. I guess I have a
very practical approach: there's enough momentum and
relevant/enthusiastic people to make some good work, and the
organizational specifics are a minor point (I know, I know, let me be
idealistic ;)

Here's my 2 cents:

- The task forces in the charter sound great. If they end up being task
forces, then they definitely need separate phone conferences

- It sounds like the single XG approach would reduce the bureaucracy and
increase the efficiency. Less red tape => more work done

- If we stick to one XG, we'll need task synchronization meetings, but
on a much lower frequency than task meet ups

That said, my main interest lies in the Distributed Architecures and
Contextual Data task forces. I'm still clearing up participation issues
back at the office, but I expect to be able to contribute to both.

Let the debate continue ;) But please, the sooner we start the more
momentum we'll still have

Miquel Martin

Christine Perey wrote:
> 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
> |
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   

-- 
Miquel Martin
Research Staff
NEC Europe Ltd.
NEC Laboratories Europe
Kurfuerstenanlage 36
69115 Heidelberg
Germany

Phone:  +49-6221-4342 116
Fax:    +49-6221-4343 155

NEW E-MAIL:
e-mail: miquel.martin@nw.neclab.eu

NEC Europe Ltd.
Registered Office: NEC House
1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL
Registered in England 2832014 
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 14:03:45 GMT

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