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

Re: Consolidation of Task-forces

From: Tim Anglade <tim.anglade@af83.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:38:09 +0100
Message-Id: <75D2F833-11AB-4C02-96D2-F36A11A47727@af83.com>
To: public-social-web-talk@w3.org

Le 11 févr. 09 à 07:47, Harry Halpin a écrit :

> Tim Anglade wrote:
>> Le 10 févr. 09 à 21:35, Harry Halpin a écrit :
> [snip]
>> iverables. It's just saying, instead
>>> of 7 task-forces spread among what appear to be about 20 people
>>> delivering what appear to be 18 reports, let's go for 4 reports  
>>> that we
>>> can actually get done, and assume that we have a core of about 15-20
>>> people working on things, which is what we seem to have. I am  
>>> against
>>> putting things in the charter we cannot reasonably deliver within a
>>> year. The criteria for "reasonably deliver" is that these do not  
>>> already
>>> have someone who wants to work on them, i.e. volunteer to edit.
>> This criteria, to my knowledge, is not a W3C one.
> No, it's not a W3C criteria. However, it is a relatively common-sense
> way of approaching doing work.

Sure. Seems sensible. To repeat myself from the “Look at Other  
Charters” thread, let's put the 2-3 Task Forces we can “reasonably  
deliver” on at the top, push the rest in a (visible) todo-list inside  
the charter an move ahead with the confirmation process.

>> Again, your plan for deliverables all but ensures that there will be
>> no more than 4 subjects tackled and only 20 people in the group.
>> Leaving even the “empty” task forces in is a good way to open the  
>> door
>> to 30 more people joining in later. Again, openness, welcomeness:
>> traits I think our XG should have.
> No, it does not.  First, I think the division of subjects, i.e.  
> division
> into User Experience/Contextual data and Distributed
> Architectures/Interoperability are both not useful or coherent
> divisions, and if someone feels excluded by any of the consolidation,
> speak up and *also* explain why you think these things can not
> consolidated and *who* you think would would work on this subject only
> if it was not consolidated. I find example-driven thinking helps here,
> think concrete examples.

See my response in the “Look at Other Charters” thread. Obviously, if  
you think I'm misguided or need further examples, let me know.

> Just because we have a bunch of marketing buzzwords does not mean that
> we have to break down into 7 task forces to write 18 marketing reports
> about said buzzwords.

Now that's just disingenuous. Just because we're in the business world  
doesn't mean we believe all the corporate bullsh*t out there and are  
driven by “focus group” trends or the latest word from TechCrunch.

We tried to focus the Unified XG proposal around subjects people  
seemed to agree on as clear division during the workshop, as  
exemplified by the workshop planning and the workshop's discussions.

> To me, that is not a good way of approaching work,
> and I have *never* seen a WG or XG pursue with any success such an
> approach. Others who have been involved in standardization, please  
> speak
> up.

I'm interested also. I've heard qualms against a single XG which I  
think we managed to ease them, through the idea of setting up separate  
telcons and structuring strongly through Task Forces.

Do people still have doubts or opposition to the currently proposed  

> Generally, also past experience shows that groups start big, then get
> smaller but more dedicated and active.

In the other thread you said the groups tend so start small then grow  
(to quote “In general, it's safer policy to aim small and then grow”).  
Not being well versed in W3C processes and history, I'm a bit  
confused. Can you explain?

> At the end, usually its the
> chairs, the editors, and the implementers left standing, and then the
> time to attract new people will then be when the XG transforms  
> (perhaps)
> into a WG or multiple WGs. I feel that Tim and Christine wish to  
> have 7
> WGs, but that is unfeasible since this is not HTML5, with it seems not
> many large vendors involved or people.

It is not what we are aiming for: clearly, we are advocating a single  
XG right now. As for the rest, I believe in taking a serious look at  
our options for our future after the XG. Pushing for 7WGs right now  
would be obviously misguided. I'm not sure what's the point you're  
trying to make here… ?

> Usually starting vague and large, based on marketing buzz-words,  
> with no
> clear deliverables or responsibilites,

I'll leave the “buzz-words” line alone here since I've already  
answered to that earlier.

As far as clear deliverables and responsibilities, we do have specific  
titles, descriptions of said deliverables are being prepared and  
editor slots are attached to each. What more do you feel we'd need?

> leads one to the situation of
> DataPortability.org and other non-W3C vendor-neutral attempts to  
> move in
> this area.

They already have. And really, what's the harm if they're vendor- 
neutral? I don't get what you're saying here.

>>> I could see the case for a separate "Business" report, if people  
>>> felt
>>> getting into the nitty-gritty on micropayments and such would be
>>> something they would work on.
>> Micropayments would probably be a bigger subject treated elsewhere.
> Then what would business practices talk about? It seems obvious that
> business models could be built around a decentralized social web. I am
> not sure if that merits a whole report, or how that report would
> substantially differ from a marketing report by Forrester or the like.

Well, you're advocating for a W3C, vendor-neutral approach and now you  
want to leave it up to Forrester? Not following you, again.

> The only thing that most people will read out of the XG will be it's
> final report (notice that every XG has a final report for future  
> work),
> so that seems a logical place to talk about business.

Definitely, that report should talk business. But I don't want to bare  
interested business editors from signing up on a specific deliverable  
that could easily support a strong look into the news business  
opportunities of (distributed) social networks. If nobody signs up, so  
be it.


- - - - - - -
Tim Anglade | directeur, pôle « Turbulences » | af83
42, boulevard de Sébastopol | 75003 Paris | France
1436, Howard St | San Francisco | CA 94103 | USA
Tel : +33 1 42 72 33 32
Mob : +33 6 35 92 77 58
skype : tim_anglade
Web : www.af83.com

This email is:  [ ] bloggable   [ ] ask first   [X] private
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 17:38:45 UTC

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