[minutes] eGov IG Call, 10 June 2007

Available at:


and as text below.

Thanks very much to Sharron for scribing the meeting today.

Next meeting: 24 June 2009, 13:00Z (scribe: Rachel)


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - MINUTES -

                     eGovernment Interest Group Call

10 Jun 2009


     1. Agenda adjustments
     2. What's going on
     3. Charter and Plan: Open discussion of [2]Charter2 draft

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Charter2


           Kevin, Rachel, Brand, Owen, Hugh B, Daniel, Sharron, Suzanne,
           Dave Mc

           Jose, John




      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]Agenda adjustments
          2. [5]What's going on, Activity update
          3. [6]Open discussion of Charter 2 draft / Use Cases
      * [7]Summary of Action Items

Agenda adjustments

    Kevin: Light agenda. Will update egov activies, look at charter
    draft. Anything to add?

    Rachel: Use cases?

    Kevin: Yes, OK. Will add discussion of Use Cases to the charter

What's going on - activy update

    Kevin: Federal gov has moved into Phase 2 of Open Government
    ... I participated in call last week. There were four areas of
    conversation that I tweeted out.
    ... The most relevant to us is the 4th item, comments and queries
    about data presentation. Our group has been asked to participate and
    take on a role similar to a moderator.
    ... If you have been following the posts, there are some ridiculous
    comments. A new method of managing comments will preserve the
    absurd, but within a hierarchy that brings the best, most serious
    ideas to the top.
    ... What has finally happened is that the expectation sahred among
    many advocacy groups for a strategy document to be quickly developed
    - those expectations have been adjusted. Participants are
    understanding that we can't just flip a switch and that federal
    processes take longer than expected.
    ... I will forward links and I encourage our group to participate
    and even take a role in moderation.
    ... The ideas on the forum run the gamut and our group has the
    expertise to contribute meaningfully.

    <Sharron> ACTION: Kevin - will post links related to recent
    activities of federal Open Government Initiative. [recorded in

    <Daniel_Bennett> Let the 1000th idea bloom

    Kevin: Ours was the 1000th idea posted and Beth reported that they
    got about 2500 ideas. The current phase will go on for a week or so,
    and dialogue will continue beyond that as systems are figured out.
    ... I am meeting with TBL by phone and in person this week. Tim will
    also meet with Beth and I will debrief him about egov activities so
    that he is prepared. Plan to ask TBL to help us get funding to
    develop prototypes.
    ... Tim has been tapped into recovery.gov and data.gov and is
    committed to being very involved.

    Suzanne: Did you mention that data.gov is in Phase 2?
    ... They are looking at sustainability. Federal CIOs that are part
    of the Federal CIO council have been asked to commit a person within
    each agency to do the data mining and to submit data from 100% of
    federal agencies.
    ... I am POC of POC Group and we have started a workgroup to train
    them. Those who get it and are very good at it, we will ask them to
    continue to help train the others. Tomorrow the POC group will
    teleconference and I will introduce roles and responsibilities.
    ... Friday we will have a F2F to recognize candidate data sets. We
    will also have monthly meetings and will want the participants to
    understand the importance of the work of the eGov.

    Kevin: EPA contact suggested that they submit a draft proposal to us
    for our feedback.

    Owen: Has a metadata template been published?

    Suzanne: Don't know if it has been finalized. We are learning as we
    go to make sure that metadata is understood.

    Kevin: Scientific abstract schema was something being looked at.

    Suzanne: Yes, but no hard decisions have been made.

    Owen: Metadata is of great interest to data managers.

    Kevin: Yes we talked alot about the importance.

    Suzanne: Things are a still a bit messy but we are learning and
    finely tuning it.

    <Owen> Suzanne is scheduled to speak about the FEA DRM in relation
    to records management at FIRM's forum at FTC on June 23:

       [9] http://firmcouncil.org/docs/20090623ForumAgenda.pdf

    Kevin: I had another meeting with BSA and an IBM IP rep attended.
    Talked about IBMs dual role, using open source technology but also
    that they use proprietary modes of operation. He was considering
    participation in eGov from IBM. I met with Adobe as well and talked
    about their reaction to the first doc and how we were working to
    mediate their concerns. They were pleased and seem cognizant of the
    urgency of our tasks and the need for respect and patience for other
    points of view.
    ... That's about all the news for now, let's look at the charter

Open Discussion of Charter draft / Use Cases

    Kevin: I went back to our F2F and email comments.
    ... within the first charter, it was hard for many of us to
    understand where to grab on and what roles each of us could assume.
    Now that first issue paper is complete, we can focus in on open
    government data and web development to provide avenues for
    accessibility, validation and such. We decided to keep the category
    of web development in there in recognition of the fact that not
    everyone is comfortable pulling XML files, etc and that we need an
    interface for all citizens.
    ... I think we may also want to create issue papers on good HTML
    practice,etc. Goals, measures and strategies are to meant to provide
    task descriptions that each can take on. We want to get a final
    charter doc to them in July.

    Rachel: The way that we write the more technical stuff is important.
    The clearer the language is, the broader the audience that we can
    work with and that we can expect to reach. Can we do anything to the
    current doc?

    Kevin: Judy Brewer provided input on several sentences at the front.
    Our understanding was that we were not allowed to touch the paper
    once it was published. Judy reminded us that we could indeed rewrite
    it. Based on what is out there now, we can revise and rewrite
    certain sections that are there. It is lengthly and meant to be read
    in sections, not in one sitting.
    ... In second year charter, I am suggesting that we publish shorter
    documents more frequently and more topically.

    Daniel: Plain language means to me that we need more editing. Policy
    needed to clarify publishing and editing cycles. Work backwards from

    Kevin: Good point. The editing cycle on the first one precluded
    editing to the extent that we had hoped.

    Owen: Who are we writing for? If academics, perhaps the approach was
    fine, but if policy makers, need brevity.

    Kevin: We need to reach both sides of the fence. Some policy people
    are highly technical, but some will glaze over.
    ... To reach the mission we need to communicate out in different

    Daniel: I agree but still think clarity is a separate issue. The
    issue of clarity is relevant no matter whether the doc is technical
    or not. As people look at it, we can call out the pre-requisites of
    technical expertise needed to understand specific content.
    ... We added a glossary but maybe what we need to do is realize that
    for eGov we need a Quick Guide for Execs or something.

    Rachel: It is not that they need to understand how XML works, but
    why it is important.
    ... even when talking about tech issues, it must be presented in a
    way that is clear.
    ... it is sometimes difficult, but can be done. It takes time and a
    level of understanding of tech issues as well.
    ... I have volunteered to clarify language.

    Sharron: Plain language must be part of our stated commitment.

    Rachel: I agree.

    Daniel: I suggest that we formalize it so that we have an editorial
    committee and that the editors are not the writers. Because we have
    different audiences, we should always have a nontech intro. Allow a
    minimum amount of time that is standard to the publishing process.

    Rachel: I agree, and propose two weeks out of any publication date.

    Kevin: I agree.

    Rachel: To summarize, then it seems that I can just jump in and work
    on a rewrite of the current document?

    Kevin: Yes, I could see us pulling out sertain sections. What you
    are doing will give us a head start.

    Rachel: I propose that we set up a two week window where no new
    content is added and the current work goes for plain language
    editorial review.

    Daniel: And that we include a part of each paper to include content
    in layman's terms.

    Rachel: Yes, and I think we will find that it is more useful to

    Kevin: We want to make it readable but also for it to become a
    resource for techies who need to translate to their own bosses.

    Daniel: I have always felt strongly that that was one of our roles.
    To translate W3C jargon and tech talk into language that folks can

    Rachel: Yes, we are the bridge. If tech folks can not explain what
    they are trying to do in language that lay people can understand, it
    is less effective.

    Daniel: Part of our next charter language could be to make that very

    Kevin: I agree and if you have a few minutes to add that to the
    wiki, please do.

    Rachel: I will start tackling pieces of the current document. How
    shall I submit them?

    Kevin: You could form small committee -

    Rachel: I can send to the list and see who wants to serve on the
    editorial board.

    <Sharron> ACTION: Rachel to post to the EGov list for volunteers to
    serve on the editorial board that she will lead. The purpose will be
    to edit documents (beginning with current issue paper) for plain
    language. [recorded in

    Kevin: About the Use Cases, part of the publishing process was
    hurried and all of those did not get linked up and were not well
    referenced within the document.
    ... We need some review of the existng Use Cases and a way to link
    them into the revised document.

    Rachel: let me understand the process for submission of Use Cases.
    They are developed by anyone in the group, submitted via the wiki,
    reviewed and then - if accepted - a Use Case is then to be
    integrated into final publication?

    Kevin: Yes. At our first F2F we created Use Cases that we worked
    from in developing the first issue paper. We did not actually link
    them up as we had intended due to the haste of publication but still
    need to do so.

    Rachel: There were many use cases developed that got orphaned in the
    process and so we are looking for ways to bring them back into our

    Kevin: Karen Myers, Jose and others spent phone time dealing with
    how to communicate out. Jose and Karen are looking for resources
    outside of the wiki to help us communicate out and keep the public
    aware of what we are doing.

    Rachel: Sounds good, thanks.

    Kevin: Mission statement?

    Daniel: One of the issues is that even putting it on the wiki people
    don't know who they could be stepping on, etc. Perhaps it would be
    most productive best to focus on one call where those interested can
    hammer out a mission statement we can live with.
    ... Are there people willing to spend the time to hash this out?

    Kevin: If Rachel puts that call out perhaps we can use the charter
    doc as their first task. Without having a Word doc circulating with
    track changes.

    Daniel: Yes, we could start the process right now.

    Owen: I hesitate to raise this as it may may complicate. But would
    we like to include a vision statement? That could help clarify
    things since our current mission statement seems to contain a bit of
    vision. Mission statement could focus on what we are actually and
    the vision statement on where we would like to see the world.

    Kevin: Good point. I told Jose that it seemed like a biz plan.
    Especially if seeking funding it could be useful.

    Owen: Stakeholders will care about goals.

    Kevin: Yes, several potential participants struggle with where they
    see themselves in this larger process.
    ... last year we wrestled alot with where we were going, how to get

    Owen: Yes I look for where StratML relates. Current themes seem to
    be goals. I will give it some thought.

    Kevin: Goal is early July to submit Charter2. Can edit in the wiki.

    Daniel: Are you saying if anyone has issues, post to the wiki by
    next week, the editorial board can then take it on?

    Kevin: Yes, then we can get it to W3C and get approved by Sept 1.

    Daniel: Can we go through the deliverables?
    ... it says we will build out the web site?

    Kevin: Yes, I mentioned that we had talked with Karen.
    ... the feedback from PR firm Edleman is that wiki is daunting and
    we could present general info that is of interest to the public in a
    more user friendly way.

    Daniel: a portal?

    Kevin: Yes, while we have several people comfortable on the wiki,
    many need more ways to reach out.

    Daniel: And this goal to achieve 100 media mentions...may not want a
    number like that to be so public.
    ... numbers are not always the most important way to measure good
    outreach. May want to be more general "raise awareness through press
    and other means"

    Kevin: I'm fine with that.

    Daniel: Can we put more emphasis on our role as a clearinghouse?
    Open the resources and encourage agencies to use them.
    ... I know data.gov is trying to do that for feds but we can help
    state, local and international institutions do this internally.

    Brand: Many people are uploading data.gov DB to Amazon cloud and
    building apps.

    Rachel: Also documenting best practices, sharing ideas like that
    would be good.

    Brand: will post his outreach to Congress members

    Kevin: Tech standards seem to be contained in many discussions on
    the Hill so awareness is increasing, which is good.

    Brand: Ideas of semantic web are catching on, Tim should ask for
    pilots to be created.

    Kevin: Yes, I am hoping for it, although resources are in doubt.

    Daniel: Plain language aside, sometimes marketing jargon like Web2.0
    creates meaningless noise. As editorial board policy, we can define
    those kinds of terms or coin our own.
    ... I looked at Web standards and did not find Web 2.0

    Rachel: Kevin, do you John and Jose have talking points?

    Kevin: Informally we do, but karen and company are working on more
    formal points.

    Owen: Most do not know what Web2.0 is, but do know Twitter,
    facebook, etc. Brand's point about prototypes is great to provide
    something that we can use, kick the tires, etc.

    Kevin: I have been asked to be more pointed.

    Brand: Or we can take over the term Web 2.0 and define it

    Kevin: I define it as widgets, distibution and sharing. Can we talk
    about that as a beginning?

    Owen: From my perspective, stovepipe of proprietary systems.

    Daniel: Those attempting Web 2.0 would be wise to first meet Web 1.0

    Kevin: Agree that is critically important and opens so many other

    Daniel: Put out a call?

    Rachel: Yes I will do that.

    Daniel: Add the section saying that all our documents will have
    executive summary and that we have the two week editorial lead time.

    Kevin: Edit wiki with any additional comments you may have about the
    charter. Jose feels we need a strong focus on OGD and I agree that
    we need to keep our finger on that pulse and make sure we are
    contibuting to all of the issues.

    Owen: Who are we doing the work for and who is doing the work

    Kevin: Point you to the fact that we would continue the Task Force
    model and encourage more activity. This time we want to make sure
    that everyone knows what they are volunteering for
    ... let's consider the structure.

    Daniel: What were the faults?

    Kevin: Lack of clarity of expectations of each Task Force (TF)
    ... sub chairs of TF were so busy in day jobs often could not get
    commitment from TF participants.
    ... With more structure and task orientation, we can expect better

    Owen: Or at least better understanding of what we can and can not

    Kevin: Yes that right too.
    ... We will have the next call in two weeks. Hope to have feedback
    on charter by then. Rachel will have editorial group together and
    they will have two weeks to edit and resubmit.

    <Sharron> ACTION: Rachel and volunteer editorial board will collect
    comments from wiki and rewrite charter doc beginning on Jun 24 to
    incorporate concepts discussed. [recorded in

    Daniel: Editorial board has 2 weeks but additional changes are still
    possible if submitted to editorial board.

    Rachel: From now on, everything we publish should go through the
    editorial board two weeks before publication.

    Kevin: I agree in general but once we get to point of submission to
    W3C with our charter, it can not change.
    If no further business we are adjourned. Need a scribe for next

    Rachel: I can do it.

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Kevin - will post links related to recent activities
    of federal Open Government Initiative. [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION:Rachel to post to the EGov list for volunteers to serve
    on the editorial board that she will lead. The purpose will be to
    edit documents (beginning with current issue paper) for plain
    language. [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION:Rachel and volunteer editorial board will collect
    comments from wiki and rewrite charter doc beginning on Jun 24 to
    incorporate concepts discussed. [recorded in
    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([16]CVS log)
     $Date: 2009/06/10 21:08:49 $

      [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [16] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 21:45:16 UTC