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

Harry, Christine,

> 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

I've been silent for a long while, just to see where things are moving and
I'm really afraid of the outcome. Please (potential) chairs, sit together on
IRC, skype or whatever, hammer out a plan and present it to the interested
parties. This is not about democracy. It is about darn setting the ball
rolling. Good luck!

Cheers,
      Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan,
Galway, Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://sw-app.org/about.html
http://webofdata.wordpress.com/


> 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>
> Subject: RE: Proposal: Keep Group Unified, Don't Divide into Taskforces
> Resent-From: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:39:53 +0000
> 
> 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
>>> 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 10:51:24 UTC