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

RE: Consolidation of Task-forces

From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:22:35 +0100
To: "'Alexandre Passant'" <alexandre.passant@deri.org>, "'Harry Halpin'" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Cc: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8628FC9C362E4C36891EB063247C3B88@T60>

Hi Harry, 

I'm afraid that I don't agree with this strategy.

The scope of the discussion and the goals of the group are getting
(prematurely) narrowed if we adopt your proposal as outlined. 

I am not an expert in W3C procedures so there may be a reason which I have
yet to learn, but I believe that the "spirit" of the workshop conclusions
and CERTAINLY the interests of the industry at large would be better served
if we keep the task forces as they are proposed, or adjusted by those who
participate in them, and have separate telecons for each with a monthly
telecon between editors/chairs to share progress of deliverables, etc. 

I, for one, will not want to attend a discussion which will need to take
place on the Interoperability/portability topic, but I am very interested in
the topic of Distributed Architectures. Likewise, I see your point about
Context and Security/Privacy, however I believe that the protocols and the
challenges are quite different.

The Landscape Task Force is to provide an overview of industry activities
which are actively working towards the fulfillment of the potential of
social networks, not to get into debates on the nitty gritty (but very
important) details of how the flow of messages/engagement of users in
communities is measured (one of the topics for the Business Practices task
force). 

My two cents on this for the record.

Christine

-----Original Message-----
From: public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre
Passant
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:00 PM
To: Harry Halpin
Cc: public-social-web-talk@w3.org
Subject: Re: Consolidation of Task-forces 


Hi,

Le 10 févr. 09 à 19:34, Harry Halpin a écrit :

>
>    Looking at the Unified Charter and then activity on this list, it's 
> pretty obvious we have too many task forces and not enough people to 
> commit [1]. I see no reason why we should not consolidate the task 
> forces. I'd rather aim for a smaller amount of quality deliverables 
> that include running code than innumerable reports on the current 
> state of play in social networking. Remember - the point of an W3C XG 
> is to figure out what needs to be *standardized* Therefore, I suggest:
>
> 1) That the Landscape and Business Task force merge and produce a 
> single report, talking about the current landscape, business 
> potentials, and future for W3C standardization in the area of social 
> networking. It appears that Tim Anglade and Christine Perey would 
> appear to be willing to edit this document. This report will be the 
> main proposal put forward for future work to the rest of the W3C once 
> the XG ends.
>
> Also, note that internationalization and access for people of all 
> levels of abilities has been a strong point for the W3C, and this 
> should clearly be part of the final report.
>
> 2) That the Privacy and Trust Group Task Force merge with the 
> Contextual Data Task force. It seems contextual data is also code for 
> mobile phones, so obviously Distributed Architecture should take this 
> into account. It appears Krisha Sankar has an interest in editing 
> this. A single deliverable that inspects current solutions would be 
> good.
>
> 3) That the Distributed Architectures and Interoperability task forces 
> merge, and produce a single document that maps data-formats from 
> differing networks and makes a case for distributed social networking.

>
> Fabien Gandon, Joaquin Salvachua and Krishna Sankar have all expressed 
> interest in editing here.

I do agree re. joining the task forces (strong overlap between the two
topics).
You can also count on me regarding editing / authorship some of the
documents (preference for the distributed architectures topics).

>
>
> First thing we do as an XG is we jointly produce a use-case document 
> that shows how business practices, best practices, privacy and trust, 
> and distributed architectures can work together.
>
> Finally, we see if we can find or help produce three interoperable 
> implementations (ideally building off of and working with existing 
> code-bases, such as that put forward by Henry Story) that demonstrate 
> running code that fulfills these ideas. Ideally, at least one of these 
> code-bases would be mobile-phone based.
>
> Instead of 7 task forces with lots of report-based deliverables, we 
> get three reports, the first 2 high-level, the latter 2 technical, and 
> some demo code.
>
> 1) Final Report to W3C
> 2) Use-Cases
> 3) Distributed Architecture and Interoperability Report and Mapping
> 4) Privacy and Trust Report
> 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)

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
>

--
Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 20:23:23 GMT

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