Re: timed-text mailings

OK, I added these names.

> daniel:
> 
> here are the names and e-mail addresses of the others to add to the list:
> 
> -- APPLE:  dave singer       singer@apple.com
> -- SPECHE:  stephen brand       sbrand@speche.com
> -- GENERIC MEDIA:  peter hoddie       peter@genericmedia.com
> -- MACROMEDIA:  bob regan       bregan@macromedia.com
> -- CINDY KING:  Cindy.King@gallaudet.edu
> 
> phill jenkins says ibm is interested, too.  phill, do you a contact name for the right person, or is it you?
> 
> thanks.
> geoff.
> 
> 
> On Friday, January 11, 2002, Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net> wrote:
> >At 09:48 AM 2002-01-11 , Daniel Dardailler wrote:
> >>
> >>ah, I see Al's message after I sent mine.
> >>
> >
> >But I didn't have the benefit of the results of the W3M meeting
> >when I wrote.
> >
> >A public-archive mailing list suits me fine.  Then we have both a discussion
> >space we can share with who we need and a record that the menbers can read of
> >what went on there.
> >
> >Sounds better than what I was saying.  D'accord.  What you
> >said.
> >
> >Al
> >
> >>It was agreed at W3C management level Wednesday that it was ok to
> >>create a forum (i.e. a mailing list to start with) to organize the
> >>work in this area before we're done identifying the exact W3C WG doing 
> >>the work. It has to be public.
> >>
> >>This is for process kind of things (a separate WG ? in which activity?
> >>etc) but also to start refining technical requirements (e.g. reuse of
> >>existing smil and xhtml modules) and the scope, role, milestone, and
> >>start building a charter that can be sent to the W3C membership.
> >>
> >>I don't you all want to start working on element and attributes names
> >>but I also hope you all undertand that if this XTMT format (making up
> >>acronym as I type..) is going to become a Web Standard, it needs to
> >>follow some W3C process lines, and it can't just be a group of
> >>interested parties deciding to put resources together without telling
> >>the world about it (careful with antitrust!).
> >>
> >>> 
> >>> At 08:52 AM 2002-01-10 , geoff freed wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >I'd like to propose that from now on, any messages about timed text be
> >>> relayed
> >>> not only to the PF list but also to all non-PF timed-text participants.  We
> >>> have enough people interested now that it's becoming a pain for me to keep
> >>> relaying messages from the PF group to people outside the group.  Any
> >problems
> >>> with this?  If not, I will send a message to all interested parties,
> >including
> >>> the PF list, so we all have everyone's contact information.  
> >>> >
> >>> >Thanks.
> >>> >Geoff/NCAM
> >>> >
> >>> 
> >>> Yes, we want to get the information shared reliably, including those not
> >>> presently subscribed to the PF list.
> >>> 
> >>> On the other hand, there is a well-founded concern that people not
> >cross-post
> >>> across Member-restricted and open spaces.  So...
> >>> 
> >>> [The information in this message may be shared with your recruits without
> >>> regard to who has taken the W3C confidentiality pledge.]
> >>> 
> >>> * Suggestion: We need some status migration for the people involved.
> >>> 
> >>> People with active Member access on the W3C site should be added to the PF
> >>> distribution.  No, this does not mean that you promised 10% of your time.
> >>> 
> >>> People from member organizations who have not gone through the process of
> >>> gaining member access should do so through their member organization.
> >>> [Proceed
> >>> to step above]
> >>> 
> >>> People from IT industry not member organizations should get their
> >organization
> >>> to join W3C.  [All these things are negotiable, but distinguish this case
> >from
> >>> the next.]
> >>> 
> >>> People without the business base to support W3C membership but with
> >expertise
> >>> in disability and technology should be identified to the leadership [start
> >>> with
> >>> Geoff Daniel and me] for possible Invited Expert status.
> >>> 
> >>> So Geoff, We should try to track for your list of contacts to include,
> >along
> >>> with name, organization, email and phone, where the individuals stand on a
> >>> scale of 
> >>> 
> >>> - have member access as individual
> >>> - from member organization but no member access as individual
> >>> - no formal ties to W3C
> >>> 
> >>> At least you, Daniel and I should all have copies of the same list.  We can
> >>> help but what information you already have
> >>> 
> >>> [Having spent the last year and a half in Grid Forum arguing against the
> >idea
> >>> that authorization information is defined in terms of a directory service,
> >>> what
> >>> we need here is a directory with authorization info...] 
> >>> 
> >>> * Discussion:
> >>> 
> >>> The reason I suggest this is that "reply to all" is not reliable through
> >>> enough
> >>> iterations.  There is just too high a rate of dropouts.  This topic has
> >>> demonstrated that already.  It helps in remembering to get it to all
> >affected
> >>> people to have one or a few logical names for distribution lists.  I have
> >two
> >>> symbols defined to cover this and I have added Rob to one of them.  We can
> >>> reasonably easily define a new named distribution at w3.org but I do not
> >>> believe it would be wise to define one which blends confidentiality
> >>> categories.  So I am left with "get people on PF for now and split off
> >later."
> >>> 
> >>> Used 'timed text' somehow in subject lines dealing with this topic.
> >>> 
> >>> Do we have anyone we need to have on distribution who does not have Member
> >>> access?  Perhaps Cindy King's associate, but she serves well enough as
> >contact
> >>> with that organization for now.
> >>> 
> >>> I wish I had a simpler solution for you, but I don't see it yet.
> >>> 
> >>> If I have a complete list, and there are truly "outside the firewall"
> >>> people we
> >>> must reach, maybe I should handle making sure they have copies?  That may
> >just
> >>> be too baroque.
> >>> 
> >>> Al
> >>>   
> >>  
> >

Received on Monday, 14 January 2002 09:55:39 UTC