- From: Sharron Rush <srush@knowbility.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:52:40 -0500
- To: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Thanks for catching those errors Jose and apologies for missing them. A couple of questions about how to proceed with the follow-up activities suggested by the call: 1. Kevin has asked that we post suggestions for Charter2 to the wiki by Jun 24. Is there a preferred method for submission? Do we send to the list and let you post to the wiki? Do we edit the wiki itself? Please advise. 2. I n the participation that Kevin urged us all to undertake on the current US federal Open Gov initiatives, should we identify ourselves as part of this group? Thanks very much, Sharron Jose M. Alonso wrote: > Corrections. > > The date on the subject of announcement message was wrong s/2007/2009. > Contrary to rumors, I don't own a time machine yet! ;) > > Also removed HughB from participants list. He tells me he was only on > IRC at the beginning but had to leave. > > -- Jose > > > El 10/06/2009, a las 23:44, Jose M. Alonso escribió: > >> Available at: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-minutes >> >> and as text below. >> >> Thanks very much to Sharron for scribing the meeting today. >> >> Next meeting: 24 June 2009, 13:00Z (scribe: Rachel) >> >> >> ------------ >> [1]W3C >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/ >> >> - MINUTES - >> >> eGovernment Interest Group Call >> >> 10 Jun 2009 >> >> Agenda >> >> 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 >> >> Attendees >> >> Present >> Kevin, Rachel, Brand, Owen, Hugh B, Daniel, Sharron, Suzanne, >> Dave Mc >> >> Regrets >> Jose, John >> >> Chair >> Kevin >> >> Scribe >> Sharron >> >> Contents >> >> * [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 >> discussion. >> >> What's going on - activy update >> >> Kevin: Federal gov has moved into Phase 2 of Open Government >> initiative. >> ... 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 >> [8]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-minutes.html#action01] >> >> <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 >> >> [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 >> draft. >> >> 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 >> deadlines. >> >> 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 >> ways. >> >> 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 >> everyone. >> >> 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 >> understand. >> >> 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 >> point. >> >> 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 >> [10]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-minutes.html#action02] >> >> 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 >> work. >> >> 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 >> there. >> >> 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 >> standards >> >> Kevin: Agree that is critically important and opens so many other >> doors. >> >> 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 >> itself? >> >> 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 >> outcomes. >> >> Owen: Or at least better understanding of what we can and can not >> do. >> >> 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 >> [11]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-minutes.html#action03] >> >> 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 >> time... >> >> 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 >> [12]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-minutes.html#action01] >> [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 >> [13]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-minutes.html#action02] >> [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 >> [14]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-minutes.html#action03] >> [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 Thursday, 11 June 2009 14:53:28 UTC