W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-council@w3.org > August 2015

RE: to recycle old and inactive CG (Community I/O) or to propose new one (Collaborative Economy)?

From: Bassetti, Ann <ann.bassetti@boeing.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:30:30 +0000
To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Daniel Harris <daniel@kendra.org.uk>
CC: "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>, harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, "public-social-interest@w3.org" <public-social-interest@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ba20a5382f4e460d9f87a337b64903fc@XCH15-01-04.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Sounds very interesting, elf. Lynn Foster also explained some of this to me awhile ago -- fascinating explorations!

I suggest using a name that is most recognizable by the community you want to attract. And also for communicating the concept(s) publicly.  For me, with no background, "economy" sounds more explicit than I/O for what I understand you are trying to get at. I/O to me implies computer system level actions.

Sandro, Harry, Wendy -- from a W3C point-of-view, would elf start a new group or can he re-name his old group?

  -- Ann

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ [mailto:perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 9:18 AM
> To: Daniel Harris
> Cc: public-council@w3.org; harry Halpin; public-social-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: to recycle old and inactive CG (Community I/O) or to propose
> new one (Collaborative Economy)?
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> On 08/20/2015 04:17 PM, Daniel Harris wrote:
> >> Since than, many new open source project emerged working in field of
> >> Collaborative Economy and I would like to offer a venue to various
> >> people who work on them to give more focus to make them gradually
> >> more interoperable.
> >>
> >> I consider proposing Collaborative Economy Community Group, following
> >> naming used on social media. (for example on twitter
> >> https://twitter.com/hashtag/CollaborativeEconomy) and using #collecon
> >> IRC channel and collecon-public@w3.org mailing list.
> >
> > I must admit I prefer "Collaboration IO" to "Collaborative Economy". Use
> #collabio?
> >
> > But, I guess, if you are trying to appeal to those who are conversant with
> "Collaborative Economy" (a la OuiShare, Shareable...) then perhaps the more
> well used/recognised words are more appropriate and better to get
> engagement and adoption.
> 
> I find myself making big mistake in setting way to broad context in
> Community I/O, Collaboration I/O still seems super generic and in many ways
> I/O can create more confusion than clarification.
> 
> I want to emphasize the Economy part, and work around established terms
> like Sharing Economy, Collaborative Consumption and in last years more
> balanced Collaborative Economy. I would even include in description couple
> of more specific tags: #carpooling #ridesharing #mealsharing #foodcoops
> #coworking #hospitality #coliving #volunteering #swapping #skillsharing
> #coproduction #commons etc.
> 
> I would also like to make it clear that it doesn't exclude commerce, but at the
> same time puts clearly in scope economic interactions based on sharing,
> collaboration, prosumption, volunteering etc.
> 
> Also staying agnostic towards various possible forms of accounting, those
> already existing: barter, monatary purchase, reputation based grant,
> donation/gift, merit/karma etc. as well as those now unknown but which will
> appear in the future.
> 
> Maybe starting with writing a clear charter draft, together with other
> interested people would make sense here? I would also refer to some
> particular candidate technologies, for example:
> 
> * http://goodrelations-vocabulary.org

> * http://schema.org/Offer, http://schema.org/Demand,

> http://schema.org/Service

> * http://microformats.org/wiki/h-listing

> * https://web-payments.org/specs/

> 
> I think this would allow better decision for a possible venue...
> 
> Cheers!

Received on Thursday, 20 August 2015 16:31:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:16:39 UTC