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

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

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:36:41 -0500 (EST)
To: public-social-web-talk@w3.org
Cc: "Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0903021120390.15943@tribal>
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Miquel Martin wrote:

> Hi,
> Apologies on my sporadic participation, but it takes time to catch up on
> all the discussion. Having done so, here's my opinion:
>
> 1. Task Forces are good because a) it has most of the advantages of
> multiple XG's but have less bureaucracy and b) it's easier for people to
> jump from task to task and help each other within a single XG

I would agree with a reasonable number of Task Forces, like the 5 used by 
the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group, if we had 50 members like the 
Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group [1]. This is because in general 
high quality work tends to come from small groups. However, if our initial 
number of members is not as large, then obviously we should have less or 
(say, if we have 10-20 active participants), then Task Forces might just 
lead to telecons and list-servs with only 2 or 3 active people. Also, 
there seems to be this impression that people will join en masse after
release of charter. In general, I have found participation in XG and WGs 
goes down over time, although a few new people do join. Thus, any charter 
should not count on large amounts of people joining, but should in a more 
conservative manner assume the amount of people active on the list is 
likely the core of the group.

While we have 70+ people on the list,  we have had 16 people answer the 
questionnaire so far.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=37584&public=1#stats


> 2. Task forces are necessary to allow people to join into only one of
> them, if that's what they want, filtering out the noise of the rest

Using correct message headings also helps.

> 3. Less deliverables is a good thing. We could have common SoA/landscape
> deliverables across the multiple TF's, and have a single result
> deliverable per TF.
>
> 4. I can understand and relate to the topic division in the new charter,
> while the old one seemed to difuse. The more the clarity, the more
> likely people will join it.
>
> As Michael Hausenblas said, let's get rid of this, but not by taking the
> default, but deciding it once and for all. Phone call is in two days,
> let's make sure we have all the tools to end it with a clear decision!
>
> Hope this helps!
> Miquel
>
> Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group wrote:
>> Hi All --
>>
>> Apologies for wading into this discussion late -- however, I'd like to put in a word of support for the idea of task forces.  We have been running with task forces in Mobile Web Best Practices wg (a working group not an XG but still hopefully instructive).  We have had good experience with this approach, spinning off task forces (with task force leaders and their own call schedules, mailing lists) and bringing these task forces back into the main group when they have completed or produced something that then needs to be considered by the whole group.  I think this could be a good mechanism for working for the proposed XG as long as the task force leaders are willing to put in the requisite work to marshal the task forces accordingly.
>>
>> I would also like to voice support for some mobile-specific activity within the XG.  This would fit well with the new set of activities being undertaken by the Mobile Web Initiative which also have a mobile-social component.
>>
>> I also support the idea of not biting off more than we can chew.  If there are activities that naturally belong in the PLING interest group then that seems to make sense, as long as there is a linkage back to the work of the XG.
>>
>> I look forward to participating in the call on Wednesday and in the ongoing work of the XG.  I could even throw my hat in the ring as a potential XG co-chair or task force leader if needed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org [mailto:public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Venezia Claudio
>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 10:56 AM
>> To: 'Harry Halpin'; Renato Iannella
>> Cc: public-social-web-talk@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Proposal: Keep Group Unified, Don't Divide into Taskforces
>>
>> Hi Harry, all,
>>
>> as said during the workshop operators would be interested in getting to a standard definition of social context, as a set of information which might range from location symbolic names (e.g. home, office, transportation) and social activity (e.g. business meeting, with friends) to sensors' related information (e.g. temperature, brightness and whatever),
>> this work has been partially carried out within W3C UWA but just with respect to the delivery context,
>>
>> the aim would be collecting use cases, generate requirements (e.g. functional, security etc) and collect the critical mass to propose/achieve:
>>
>> 1) a social context vocabulary
>> 2) a definition of Web social context which would extend the web browsing context
>> 3) the specification of APIs to get/set social contextual information
>> 4) a (privacy) security model
>>
>> We believe that contextual information will be more and more important in social networking (especially in mobility) and we'd like to prevent a massive market fragmentation,
>>
>> Regards
>> Claudio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org [mailto:public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Harry Halpin
>> Sent: venerdì 27 febbraio 2009 9.54
>> 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/0046.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
>>
>>
>> Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.
>>
>> This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
 				--harry

 	Harry Halpin
 	Informatics, University of Edinburgh
         http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
Received on Monday, 2 March 2009 16:37:19 GMT

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