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

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

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:39:15 -0500 (EST)
To: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
Cc: "'Renato Iannella'" <renato@nicta.com.au>, public-social-web-talk@w3.org, "'Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group'" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0902270534110.19830@tribal>
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Christine Perey wrote:

> 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).

I am suggesting that we give up editing charter [2] as it is too big, do 
not use task-forces, but try to cover the topics in a smaller charter with 
more focussed deliverables.

>  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.

Given that I have seen only about 2 people argue for this, and most of the 
list is silent, I see no reason why not. In particular, Incubator Groups 
are supposed to be light-weight.

>  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.

I believe you are not familiar with W3C process. The amount of 
participants on this list (70 some) is not huge or abnormal.

> 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?

No, I am arguing that we have a single charter with a few deliverables, 
and no unnecessary task force bureaucracy. That reflects the actual 
partipation in the group. I think charter [1] can be revised to fit the 
necessary topics.

>     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?

All these topics can be dealt with in a smaller number of deliverables. 
Furthermore, the precise terms you have used to describe these topics are 
a bit confusing to some people as well. Also, topics you have not covered 
in your list, such as accessibility and internationalization, are actually 
just as important as "contextual data" I think.

> 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.

Perhaps they are hoping this discussion will end soon. I do, and I am 
wondering why we do not simply follow past successful models.

[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
>> [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 Halpin
 	Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 10:39:52 UTC

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