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

Re: Consolidation of Task-forces

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:09:16 +0000
Message-ID: <4991DEEC.7090309@ibiblio.org>
To: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
Cc: public-social-web-talk@w3.org

Alexandre Passant wrote:
>> 5) Code
> Re. the code, there are already various implementations over there
> (openstack, various RDF-exporters / wrappers for major sites,
> data-consumers, etc ...)
> I'm wondering how 'code' itself should be considered as a deliverable.
> I think it would be most appropriate to have some code in various TF,
> rather that considering code as a separate one ?
> (moreover, IP / licencing issues may also be taken into account)
At an XG-level, new code would and probably should *not* even have to
produced, but we could find already-existing code that fulfills or comes
close to filling the best practices for distributed architectures/trust
and privacy/etc.

I believe that most of the code is already out there, and XG members
might spend time investigating current codebases and contributing (and
many of us already work with various code in this area to begin with!).

If we progress from XG to WG licensing issues will have to be taken into
account. I imagine there's enough W3C Patent Policy compatible code out

Code should *not* be a task force or deliverable. But it should be
something that we keep in mind. WGs need to have 3 interoperable
implementations, not XGs, but if we want to transition into a WG at some
point we need to  ideally some code already running.

 Perhaps the way forward should be to have a use-case doc, the reports
look at landscapes and best practices, and then each report mention
code-bases, and in the use-case document we mention how existing code
can satisfy the use-cases and to what extent.
> Best,
> Alex.
>> We do a single telecon and mailing list at first, with option of
>> bifurcating into more as needed based on task-forces once task-forces
>> get going.
>> Also, we call it "Social Web" XG, as that name seems most popular [2].
>> Lastly, I'm happy to help chair, but I want a co-chair. Dan Brickley,
>> Renato Ianella, and Fabien Gandon have also said they would be up for
>> chairing, and Christine has done a good job de-factor chairing. Perhaps
>> people should choose between chairing and editing?
>> If there are not objections, I'll refactor the charter this coming
>> weekend. We can also make another Doodle talking about who would want to
>> join which of the consolidated task-forces, edit which documents, and
>> chair.
>> I'd like to see the charter go to AC membership for voting fairly
>> shortly, say be Feb 23rd.
>>       thanks,
>>          harry
>> [1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/UnifiedSocialXG
>> [2] http://www.doodle.com/4zdqm65sa8qmey8w
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 20:09:39 UTC

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