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: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:28:24 +0000
Message-ID: <497A0C48.9030305@ibiblio.org>
To: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
Cc: public-social-web-talk@w3.org

Christine Perey wrote:
> 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.
Consider this a "Who's here?" poll. Part of scoping and frameworks is
seeing how many people are interested and therefore how much can be
taken on, and therefore whether or not one or two charters should be
made. The concrete output of this listserv should be one or more
charters (leaning to two at this point it appears).

There was a lot of excitement at the workshop, and maybe there are a lot
of people monitoring this list, but I'd like to hear what people say and
what they want a bit more. I'm also concerned people who were at the
workshop are not on this list, and therefore not continuing the
discussion on this list.
> 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?
>   
I'm not limiting scope at all. But it seems that the choice was one big
XG with a large charter, or two smaller and more focused XGs, one
focussing more on mapping existing work and another on best practices
for privacy/context/etc. Either is fine with me, just want to see what
people want before I begin doing charter edits again.

To me, as I've said before, half of organizational duties and scoping is
figuring out how many people with what expertise want to regularly
participate.
> Maybe I'm missing a key element.
>   
Hopefully cleared up.
> Christine 
>
>
> -----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 18:28:58 UTC

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