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

RE: Consolidation of Task-forces

From: Krishna Sankar (ksankar) <ksankar@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:20:21 -0800
Message-ID: <9FA16888AD1BF64ABCE6C2532CCEB98A06916384@xmb-sjc-219.amer.cisco.com>
To: "Christine Perey" <cperey@perey.com>, "Alexandre Passant" <alexandre.passant@deri.org>, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Cc: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>

Agreed. We should not combine task forces that have impedance mismatch. OTOH, I am a fan of a little simplification and focus on fewer artifacts. I think we can have a middle ground - for example I do not think there will be a mismatch if we combine Privacy and context tfs. But a business and tech tf might need to be separate. 

Cheers
<k/>

|-----Original Message-----
|From: public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org [mailto:public-social-web-
|talk-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christine Perey
|Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 12:23 PM
|To: 'Alexandre Passant'; 'Harry Halpin'
|Cc: public-social-web-talk@w3.org
|Subject: RE: Consolidation of Task-forces
|
|
|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 21:21:09 GMT

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