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

Re: Results of Questionnaire

From: Henry Story <Henry.Story@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:03:54 +0100
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Cc: public-social-web-talk@w3.org
Message-id: <30BC6D69-57F3-4524-BB51-7ACBE2213909@Sun.Com>
Hi all,

I thought I had subscribed to this mailing list a while ago, but  
clearly not.  So I missed all the discussion going on here. Sorry  
about that.

We have been very busy in the foaf+ssl camp developing more demos,  
filling out details of the protocol, and more all listed at
So I just did not see the time fly by.

So with that in mind, I like Danbri's latest charter as it is very  
inclusive and open. I agree the first stage of this process has to be  
about evaluating what is out there, what the big problems are, what  
pieces are, and getting everyone to communicate.

I'll join the teleconf this evening,


On 4 Mar 2009, at 13:44, Harry Halpin wrote:

> 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
> topics.
> 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.
> [1]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/SocialWebXGCharter/results
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 13:05:17 UTC

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