W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-socialweb@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Doodle poll on IG vs. XG

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:22:34 +0000
Message-ID: <b3be92a01001200822i5cff7633x34eaaf3d8e54506c@mail.gmail.com>
To: cperey@perey.com
Cc: public-xg-socialweb@w3.org
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com> wrote:
> Hi Harry,
> Your Doodle asks if the group should ask the W3C for extension as an XG or
> change to IG. Is there not a third scenario in which the report of the SWXG
> gets finished (at least in draft) in the next 60 days?

We will still produce an interim report in 60 days of course.

> Ten months ago I found it difficult to envision how we would use an entire
> year to complete the charter of the XG...

I am not surprised. About 2/3 of XGs ask for charter extensions.

> I fear that if the XG were to become directly an IG, it might not *ever*
> fulfill its charter and a lot of effort would be lost.


> On the other hand, if  we take more and more time before producing a report,
> and with the world of social Web moving forward, not standing still, how do
> we know that the information gathered last July is still accurate? relevant?
> valid?

Explain what parts are no longer accurate/relevant?

> Don't you/we run the risk, with an extension, of the XG being totally
> irrelevant (we may be anyway!)?

Well, we do have Jeff Panzer from Google on the next call over the
Salmon Protocol, which I think will be great, it's important work the
W3C should be aware of.

> I am unable to commit more of my time to the SWXG report/document (since I
> am up against another deadline right now), we all know how deadlines can be
> very valuable for increasing focus and productivity.

No problem, you've done lots of work with the Framework doc already,
and some combo of that with ID Commons Lexicon will be crucial.

> What are the chances that by asking for an extension of the SWXG, the group
> and its editor(s) are just pushing the inevitable "pain" out to spring 2010?

Well, most people (including myself) have a bit more time in summer
than we do in the spring. I am fully confident a final report can be
done that adequately addresses the landscape, but we have still not
really engaged large portions of the landscape and crucial
technologies - that's what worries me more than anything else.  That
just requires more time.

> --
> Christine
> Spime Wrangler
> cperey@perey.com
> mobile +41 79 436 68 69
> VoIP (from US) +1 (617) 848-8159
> Skype (from anywhere) Christine_Perey
> Harry Halpin wrote:
>> To take a quick straw poll, here is the Doodle poll for IG vs. XG:
>> http://www.doodle.com/g6wgh3dsydquivnh
>> Basically, if we extend the XG, then we have more time to figure out
>> future standardization and write the final report.
>> If we go the route of the IG, then we can use the list-serv and even
>> meet indefinitely, but we don't really have a purpose per se.
>> My preference is to stick with the XG for the time being before
>> transitioning into an IG, as I think we have yet to overview the full
>> landscape and talk to enough people to give the W3C an accurate
>> overview and gameplan that respects and integrates well into the rest
>> of the Social Web eco-system. Plus, I only like participating in
>> activities that have definite goal. Once we are done with the final
>> report, I'm happy to turn into a IG-driven listserv though if that's
>> the best way forward, or maybe an IG plus some WGs (Working Groups).
>> For differences, see here [2].
>> [1]http://www.doodle.com/g6wgh3dsydquivnh
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups
>>        cheers,
>>             harry
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 16:23:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:08 UTC