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

RE: Poll: Who would join Social Web XG(s)? 1 or 2 XGs? Telecons?

From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:18:23 +0100
To: "'Harry Halpin'" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Cc: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F719B79A32174AE3A4830889BF10F90C@T60>

I’m a little confused here. 

Earlier today we were discussing scopes and frameworks. 

Now we've moved off and are taking names.  If your (Harry) question is "are
there enough people here to do good work on many topics and to do the work
in multiple groups?" I think the answer from the past hour is there is a lot
of excitement, a lot of experts monitoring this list and a LOT to do. 

Unfortunately, no social networking operators and, with the exception of Tim
Anglade, we don't have anyone who is building platforms for social
networking today.

Why would we want/need to limit our scope to data portability and/or
semantic web now?

Maybe I'm missing a key element.


-----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, January 23, 2009 7:01 PM
To: Dan Brickley
Cc: Karl Dubost; public-social-web-talk@w3.org
Subject: Re: Poll: Who would join Social Web XG(s)? 1 or 2 XGs? Telecons?

Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 23/1/09 18:37, Karl Dubost wrote:
>> Le 23 janv. 2009 à 11:43, Harry Halpin a écrit :
>>> 1) Who would join the Social Web XG? Please add if you are a W3C 
>>> member or not, and if your organization would join W3C.
>> I would join this XG (if I find an employer who is W3C Member or a an 
>> employer who would be in favor of joining W3C)
> To be clear, is this just so you have the resources/support you need 
> to be effective and useful in the group?
> I have no assumption that W3C Membership should be a precondition for 
> participation in the XG(s). A public list that the public are welcome 
> to participate in, and telecons open to those without member 
> affiliation too. I don't care quite how this is cludged/managed in 
> terms of W3C process; but I really think we'll get nowhere if the 
> partipation model excludes those many people working outside of W3C.
> Is anyone proposing a Membership-based participation model?

Of course not - obviously, this group should be as open as possible,
especially given that many relevant people doing this kind of work are not
W3C members. At the same time, assessing how many W3C members want to
participate in 1 or 2 groups is useful, as charters have to be verified by
at least 4 W3C members. I think the 1 XG model has at least
4 members, I'm not sure yet about two XGs. But maybe!

> cheers,
> Dan
> --
> http://danbri.org/
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 18:19:10 UTC

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