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

RE: Proposal: Keep Group Unified, Don't Divide into Taskforces

From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:32:01 +0100
To: "'Harry Halpin'" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, "'Renato Iannella'" <renato@nicta.com.au>
Cc: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>, "'Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group'" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
Message-ID: <FD3B84441C2D47E290630D4EC87188FB@T60>
Hi Harry,

Quickly:
1. Perhaps I am missing something but I really don't understand what is
*new* in the proposals voiced on list this morning (compared with the
proposals voiced by the same participants 40-50 days ago, sorry I don't have
time to go digging those up). 

  A. We know that there is an experienced group of W3C editors and chairs
who have good experience with small, focused groups and many cuts and
bruises to indicate that the alternative (an inclusive charter) is a bad
idea. And that you wish to spare us all the pain.
       It's great to have the experience and to learn from it, however, the
future does not always, perfectly reflect the past. See point 2 which is in
your favor.

  B. The problem is that the group of potential participants has expanded
vis a vis past W3C work charters. 
       I believe that the consensus in response to a question posted to the
list was (is) to have one XG (and there remain very good reasons for this)
*AND* to include/embrace the many new activities which are appropriate and
can be covered in the topic of Social Web XG. 

Let's be clear: is your proposal (today, as in the past) that the data
portability and interoperability in social network activities be conducted
in a new XG [1] and that separate XGs (and mailing lists, and telecons, etc)
be created for other all the other topics within scope? 

     Or are you suggesting that all other topics (see the task forces in
[2]) be either (a) cast aside until those who have time/desire create new XG
within W3C or (b) are not of interest to the W3C now or in the future?
 
2. Another thing which is NOT NEW (and worrisome) is that those on the list
who have a stake in the outcome of this discussion/decision (more than I,
certainly) are not expressing themselves.  

[1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebXGCharter
[2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/UnifiedSocialXG

3. with regards to a mobile specific deliverable or a mobile-specific
agenda, I will begin a separate thread. 

Christine  

cperey@perey.com 
mobile (Swiss): +41 79 436 68 69


-----Original Message-----
From: public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Harry Halpin
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 9:54 AM
To: Renato Iannella
Cc: public-social-web-talk@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Keep Group Unified, Don't Divide into Taskforces

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Renato Iannella wrote:

>
> On 26 Feb 2009, at 19:57, Harry Halpin wrote:
>
>> I feel the proposed charter may be too large, due to having too many 
>> deliverables (15 at my last count). A smaller charter with (5) 
>> deliverables was written earlier.
>
>
> I agree with Harry, and I indicated so earlier [1] - from my current 
> experiences in running an XG.
>
> This is not to say that what was has been proposed is not valuable, 
> but taken in the context of a W3C Incubator Group, the current scope 
> is significantly more than most W3C multi-year multi-working group
Activities.
>
> Event the smaller charter [2] can be modified to include the core outputs:
> 1 - Use Case/Requirements
> 2 - State-of-the-Art Report (best practices)
> 3 - Final Report (next steps)
>
> I also strongly believe that the Policy/Privacy/Trust work simply be 
> moved to the W3C PLING Interest Group (as argued in [1]) as the 
> evaluation of the XG Charter [3] stipulates:

Note that I concur here, as PLING has extensive experience in this area. 
Another option is that PLING could write it in joint with the Social Web XG,
if there are experts that are part of Social Web XG but not PLING. 
However, it might be simpler just to have those experts joing PLING.

Second, we do have a few mobile phone people involved. In the smaller
proposed charter [2] it might be feasible to add a report that focuses
specifically on the future of *mobile* social networking. Although I
strongly believe in one Web that steps across mobile and non-mobile
boundaries, a report that details the advantages of mobile networking,
accessibility, and how the W3C can co-ordinate future work in this area
could be useful. However, in the second, larger proposed charter [2], there
"contextual data" and "user experience" volunteers are missing, and the
charter is basically empty. Perhaps there is a lack of interest from the
mobile community, despite their heavy presence at the workshop? If not, now
would be a good time to speak up.

[1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebXGCharter
[2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/UnifiedSocialXG


> "It is desirable to take ideas related to specific technology 
> solutions that are already being worked on elsewhere (within or 
> outside of the W3C) back to the place in which the work is taking place"
>
> I suspect this will be a major discussion point at the teleconference 
> next week.
>
> Cheers...  Renato Iannella
> NICTA
>
> [1]
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-social-web-talk/2009Feb/00
> 46.html> [2] <http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebXGCharter>
> [3] <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/about.html#Scope>
>

-- 
 				--harry

 	Harry Halpin
 	Informatics, University of Edinburgh
         http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 10:32:44 GMT

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