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

Results of Questionnaire

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:44:22 +0000
Message-ID: <49AE77A6.4010101@ibiblio.org>
To: public-social-web-talk@w3.org
It appears that the questionnaire has had a healthy amount of activity.
The final results are public and available here [1], and should inform
the teleconference, although I encourage as many people as possible to
attend. I will offer a brief summary of the results:

1) More people (about double) favor editing the smaller charter than the
larger one. Therefore, especially given DanBri's recent proposed
charter, I propose that we start with a merge of DanBri's charter (as
DanBri's charter is missing many bureaucratic details) and the original,
smaller charter and then selectively add things from the much larger
charter. In essence, merge the 3 charters very, very carefully and keep
it lightweight.

2) The group is pretty evenly split on whether or not to use task
forces. Given that 40 people have responded, task forces may be useful
in the beginning. The majority seem to think that if taskforces are
implemnted, one listserv with multiple telecons is the way to go.

3) What task forces? What deliverables? Looking over interests, the
large areas of interest are interoperability/distributed architecture,
followed by privacy and trust and user experience. Looking over editor
volunteering for deliverables, there is enough support (given at least 2
editors, a requirement most of the group agrees with) for
   a) Report on possible next steps (i.e. final XG report)
   b) Report on Privacy and Trust
   c) Report on Contextual Data
   d) Mapping between APIs and data formats
   e) Best Practice Guide.

  I might add that a "use-case and requirement" doc is usually a good
idea. There is enough support for that if the two proposed use-case docs
are merged.

Re any exact task forces, the polls show support for merging distributed
architectures/interoperability as well as business and landscape topics,
but people really want to keep user experience and contextual data as

4) The majority of people seem to think privacy and trust work can be
done jointly with or in PLING. Assuming we keep 3-5 deliverables (I'm
also a fan of just having one final report), then task forces can be
grouped around remaining deliverables (contextual data/user
experience/mobile? and mapping). I would think the final report and best
practices guide should probably not be separate task forces. IMHO, for a
group of about 40 people, two task forces seem about right.

5) As regards chairing, the majority of people seem to think DanBri and
myself should chair. Co-chairing with DanBri is fine with me.

Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 12:44:57 UTC

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