Re: XGs, IGs, TFs, flexibility and scope -- Re: [minutes] eGov IG Call, 24 June 2009

El 30/06/2009, a las 3:52, Anne Washington escribió:
> Thanks for getting back to me.
> I didn't want to form Incubator Groups/XG (we have enough  
> initialisms already)! I wanted to imitate their style when we create  
> our taskforces/TFs. A better example of the XG page clarity would be

Ah, got it.

> I understand not wanting to name the TFs in Charter 2. When and if  
> we establish the other TF's I'd suggest we follow a simple  
> repeatable format so they can seamlessly be established and  
> maintained. Rachel's editorial TF is a great example.
> Below are some of the bits I liked from XG mixed with Rachel's  
> rubric. Each section is followed by a question that it answers
>  Coordinator: Who do I contact? Who is responsible?
>  Authors: Who else is working on this taskforce?
>  Meetings: Is there a regular time commitment?
>  Timeframes: When are things due?
>  Assigning Tasks: What is the process for generating and finishing  
> tasks?
>  Joining a TF: How do I become a part of the taskforce?
>  Deliverable & Publications: What will we have to show at the end?
>  TF Duration: How long (days, months, years) is the TF active?
>  TF Group procedures: How do participants on the TF interact, if at  
> all?
> If we can make the TF work clear, it will be simpler for those who  
> volunteer to devote their attention to the task at hand instead of  
> on formulating procedures. To make it easier for new TF  
> coordinators, I could set up a wiki template or write a how-to page  
> for the wiki whenever we are ready for that step.

This sounds very good to me and I think I now understand your point  
well. We could put something in the charter, maybe not mentioning the  
TFs but stating what you mention above, e.g. "IG could establish TFs  
to tackle specific issues of special interest to the group. TFs must  
be proposed to the Chairs and can only be established by group  
consensus. When establishing a TF it should be made clear @@add here  
the bits above??@@"

> Something to keep in mind after Charter2 is finalized.

Well, we can give hints in the charter as I mentioned right above.  
What about that?

-- Jose

> Anne L. Washington
> Standards work -
> Academic work - George Washington University
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Jose M. Alonso wrote:
>> Hi Anne,
>> I'm not sure about the most interesting bits for you at the pointer  
>> below compared to the way this IG is organized... in fact, if you  
>> read any XG charter and our current charter you'll quickly find the  
>> similarities.
>> Incubator Groups (XG) have only three main differences (when  
>> compared to IGs):
>> * Their initial goal is just to explore a given topic area
>> * They are directly initiated by W3C Members (charter is not  
>> approved by W3C Advisory Committee)
>> * The don't have a W3C staff contact
>> I've been recently recommended (again) not to specifically name the  
>> TFs in Charter 2 but the areas of interest then IG could start TFs  
>> as needed.
>> Rachel already started one, the Editorial TF. She has been adding  
>> info the the TF page with mission, goals, operating procedures...
>> If you want to highlight the bits in the XG procedures that you  
>> liked the most, I could try respond more to the point. I'm all for  
>> improving the way we work.
>> You all heard me say I'm lowering every barrier I can and,  
>> honestly, I currently don't see any to participation. I'd like to  
>> hear from you and others the ones you see and we could discuss if  
>> and how to lower those, too.
>> I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question but hope this helps a  
>> bit as an answer.
>> Cheers,
>> Jose.
>> El 24/06/2009, a las 23:27, Anne Washington escribió:
>>> Josema,
>>> I was poking around the W3C Incubator Group site you sent during  
>>> the call today. I noticed that there was a page with procedures  
>>> for those who wanted to get involved.
>>> If we had that sort of organization for our task forces, it would  
>>> be easier for me and perhaps others to find like-minded people and  
>>> to know what document to produce. Since I am unfamiliar with all  
>>> the W3C rules, this may not be applicable. However, the Incubator  
>>> group is working with the same need for flexibility and scope of  
>>> content and they found this way to organize themselves.
>>> Following Kevin's "aggregator not initiator" concept, it seems  
>>> crucial that part of our process is making it easy for government  
>>> employees to participate. We need to make it obvious how new  
>>> people can drop in and lend a hand. The more clear we can make the  
>>> committment and scope of work, the easier it will be to expand our  
>>> ranks.
>>> Anne L. Washington
>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Jose M. Alonso wrote:
>>>> Online:
>>>> also as text below.
>>>> [1]W3C
>>>>   [1]
>>>>                            - DRAFT -
>>>>            eGovernment Interest Group Teleconference
>>>> 24 Jun 2009
>>>> [2]Agenda
>>>>   [2]
>>>> See also: [3]IRC log
>>>>   [3]
>>>> Attendees
>>>> Present
>>>>       john, josema, kevin, rachel, daniel, dave, adam, oscar, anne,
>>>>       owen, brand, george
>>>> Regrets
>>>> Chair
>>>>       john, kevin
>>>> Scribe
>>>>       rachel, josema
>>>> Contents
>>>>  * [4]Topics
>>>>      1. [5]Agenda adjustments
>>>>      2. [6]What's going on (events and the like)
>>>>      3. [7]eGov/Comm Planning Calls and Coordination
>>>>      4. [8]Charter and Plan
>>>>      5. [9]Editorial Task Force
>>>>  * [10]Summary of Action Items
>>>>  _________________________________________________________
>>>> <dmcallis> having some challenging internet problems this morning
>>>> <josema> still three unknown people ?
>>>> <aharvey> I'm aadd
>>>> <josema> only two to go!
>>>> <josema> kevin, john, I think we should try to identify the other
>>>> two and go ahead
>>>> <Daniel_Bennett> this is eating into the 20min for the "whats going
>>>> on" agenda item
>>>> Agenda adjustments
>>>> <josema> [all happy with agenda]
>>>> What's going on (events and the like)
>>>> Kevin: made a presentation to Federal CIO Committee
>>>> ... lots going on w/ and open government initiative
>>>> ... presented Group Note, was asked if NIST is involved in our  
>>>> work.
>>>> ... some people from NIST attended F2F but no permanent members on
>>>> IG.
>>>> ... we need to make sure ...we keep on top of everything happening
>>>> in govt
>>>> ... lots of discussion related to metadata and public data catalog
>>>> ... CIO Council struggling with how to make data discoverable
>>>> ... Kevin meeting w/George Thomas to follow up (George is on the
>>>> call today)
>>>> <josema> hey george, good to hear you!
>>>> George: RDF not well known in gov, also struggling with
>>>> standardization for linked data
>>>> <john> we have that too in the UK
>>>> Brand: attended semantic web meeting
>>>> ... provided some examples of semantic web best practices
>>>> ... partnering with NIST on interoperability in cloud computing
>>>> ... planning a semantic web workshop set for September hosted by
>>>> FDIC
>>>> Kevin: update on meeting w/Tim O'Reilly and Kundra, Chopra
>>>> ... need to present information in a way that managers can
>>>> understand
>>>> ... Vivek working on data dashboard
>>>> ... we have technical info documented, just need to translate to
>>>> show business value
>>>> <josema> I guess semantic web workshop above hosted by FDIC is the
>>>> XBRL one
>>>> Kevin: will follow up with additional action items for year 2
>>>> <john>
>>>> [11] 
>>>> productCd-047041801X.htm
>>>> l
>>>>  [11]
>>>> John: recommend this book
>>>> ... good "basics" info
>>>> ... good strategy for group is to point out good work by colleagues
>>>> around the world
>>>> ... help each of us build a case within our own communities, if we
>>>> can demonstrate success by others
>>>> <john> everyone ready to move on?
>>>> <josema> [12]PdF
>>>>  [12]
>>>> Daniel: going to PdF
>>>> Kevin: I have a discount code if anyone else wants to register, let
>>>> me know
>>>> <anne> For the record, if not already mentioned, Tim Berners Lee  
>>>> was
>>>> chosen by PM to lead open gov data in UK
>>>> <anne> [13]
>>>>  [13]
>>>> eGov/Comm Planning Calls and Coordination
>>>> John: Chairs have been meeting with W3C folks to coordinate
>>>> marketing for our Group
>>>> <josema> that was me on a _real_ phone, no way to get decent sound
>>>> today from here :(
>>>> Kevin: Looking for opportunities to market our efforts, raise
>>>> awareness about our work
>>>> ... avoid recreating the wheel, if others know what we're doing,
>>>> they can join us
>>>> ... integrate our work into larger eGov efforts
>>>> ... O'Reilly summit coming up this fall, 2 members submitted case
>>>> studies
>>>> ... they are still calling for Case Studies, but already actually
>>>> have received more than they have time for
>>>> ... W3C Communications team helping us research ways to raise
>>>> awareness of our Group's work
>>>> Daniel: Recommends creating a Use Case Library for data-related
>>>> initiatives
>>>> ... to help governments standardize data
>>>> ... one single central place to find out what's being used, and
>>>> where
>>>> Kevin: We do have a library of Use Cases - what to do with them  
>>>> now?
>>>> <john> we also talked about a questionnaire - to try and benchmark
>>>> who is where. Not sure of value of that.
>>>> Daniel: "wikipedia" of data from around the world
>>>> John: Unless we ensure we are producing quality outputs, we won't
>>>> gain much traction.
>>>> ... Need to ensure we produce a coherent "package"
>>>> <josema> we also discussed about ETF, mentioned we expected ETF to
>>>> tweak IG deliverables, still Comm to help us with media
>>>> opportunities, outreach and the like
>>>> John: need to produce a White Paper, Kevin is drafting
>>>> Charter and Plan
>>>> <josema> [14]Draft Charter 2
>>>>  [14]
>>>> John: Kevin posted first draft of Year 2 Charter
>>>> ... Timeframes very short!
>>>> ... Need to finalize ASAP, so we can submit before deadline in  
>>>> early
>>>> July.
>>>> ... need to be very careful about specific deliverables - can we
>>>> actually DO those things?
>>>> <aharvey> +1 to john's point about deliverables
>>>> <josema> I think we need to get this to W3M agenda on July, 15th...
>>>> 22nd in the worst case scenario
>>>> Kevin: Draft posted is just a "draft" - need feedback!
>>>> John: Are deliverables realistic? Do they add value?
>>>> <josema> my two concerns: actual deliverables and "visualization"  
>>>> TF
>>>> Owen: Who is volunteering to take the lead on deliverables? Nothing
>>>> will happen w/o someone taking ownership
>>>> Kevin: Agree
>>>> <aharvey> +1 to Owen
>>>> <dmcallis> +1 to Owen
>>>> Kevin: that's why we need to increase participation - either by
>>>> adding more members or getting current members more active
>>>> ... our Group can serve as a bridge betweens lots of other
>>>> initiatives
>>>> ... need to get people to commit to actually DOING things!
>>>> <anne> +1 Kevin's idea of creating liasons
>>>> Owen: Who will be liaison to those other groups?
>>>> George: issues with RDFA and HTML5 causing concern
>>>> <Zakim> josema, you wanted to _try_ talk about my OGD TF  
>>>> discussions
>>>> John:I want to talk to the "html5 guys"
>>>> Jose: Working w/W3C communities
>>>> ... we can have mixed membership - collaborate with other groups to
>>>> create "design patterns for Open Government Data"
>>>> ... each individual task force can have its own mailing list, to
>>>> make communication easier
>>>> ... agrees w/John about html5 issues
>>>> ... govt already has many use cases around RDFa to illustrate the
>>>> value
>>>> Kevin: html5 issue being talked about, perhaps we can raise these
>>>> issues in a larger arena
>>>> <josema> I already communicated this to Mike Smith (HTML WG Team
>>>> contact), will contact him again
>>>> Daniel: We want to standardize...but lots of new exciting things
>>>> always happening
>>>> Daniel: our group can help everyone "get along"
>>>> <john> just checking charter2 wording, checking this type of issue
>>>> is in our scope
>>>> <josema> ACTION: josema to try get RDFa Gov use cases on TPAC  
>>>> agenda
>>>> [recorded in
>>>> [15]]
>>>> <trackbot> Created ACTION-71 - Try get RDFa Gov use cases on TPAC
>>>> agenda [on José Manuel Alonso - due 2009-07-01].
>>>> Kevin: is there a business need that conflicts w/RDFa?
>>>> <dmcallis> How do we view competing technologies in metadata, (like
>>>> XMP) and the wide use of such?
>>>> Kevin: not sure our group is doing all we should
>>>> <josema> to make my point clearer: I believe OGD is a superset of
>>>> Linked Government Data, i.e. Linked Data will be a significant part
>>>> of it but we'll have non-LD use cases
>>>> Kevin: this year, there are lots of good opportunities for our  
>>>> Group
>>>> to make a positive impact
>>>> <ocr> +1 to josema, RDFa and OGD
>>>> Daniel: important to comply with a standard
>>>> Kevin: one of our missions is to partner with others, aggregate  
>>>> best
>>>> solutions
>>>> <anne> Like Kevin's policy of aggregator and not initiator.
>>>> Kevin: use cases can demonstrate value
>>>> ... what new technologies are coming out that are going to evolve
>>>> into standards?
>>>> John: This group is a place where people from MANY governments can
>>>> get together and discuss common problems
>>>> <josema> +1 to john
>>>> John: share best practices
>>>> ... help each other
>>>> ... eGov IG role is to capture "government" issues and communicate
>>>> w/those outside of government
>>>> ... no other W3C group has this same perpective
>>>> ... regarding Charter 2 - where do we go now?
>>>> ... do we have the right scope, how widely should we cover the web
>>>> development area?
>>>> ... do we want to stay with a broad perspective, or narrow our
>>>> scope?
>>>> <john> wriggle room?
>>>> Kevin: important to leave some room to adjust as we go, since  
>>>> things
>>>> change so quickly
>>>> ... some issues include accessibility, interoperability
>>>> <josema> we have plenty to choose from:
>>>> [16] (but even that
>>>> may not be enough wrt visualization)
>>>>  [16]
>>>> Kevin: try not to get bogged down, how best to serve the public?
>>>> Kevin: sees 3 different broad areas (in addition to open govt data)
>>>> <josema> maybe "Web Design and Applications" ?
>>>> <aharvey> or "User Experience and Education"
>>>> <john> like both suggestions
>>>> Kevin: should focus on things that help governments deliver
>>>> citizen-oriented services
>>>> Daniel: looking at "open data" versus "development" - interesting
>>>> division
>>>> ... division between those is not always clear
>>>> <josema> adam, have you seen
>>>> [17] ?
>>>>  [17]
>>>> <aharvey> No, thanks for the link Jose!
>>>> <josema> all, see namely
>>>> [18] 
>>>> charter-20090617.html#coor
>>>> dination
>>>>  [18]
>>>> Daniel: these 2 task forces need to collaborate where issues merge
>>>> John: see link posted by Jose on W3C Open Web Education Alliance
>>>> Incubator Group
>>>> <josema> I'm "guilty" of IG being listed there, forgot to mention  
>>>> it
>>>> before, sorry!
>>>> John: practical ideas for helping govt make the best use of the web
>>>> Kevin: need to prioritize what is most important now
>>>> ... long-term data management and other areas are not our top
>>>> priority right now
>>>> ... what is the most appropriate thing for our group to focus on
>>>> now?
>>>> <john> so we do in fact mean "web design and applications"? (to
>>>> borrow josema's phrase)
>>>> <Zakim> josema, you wanted to ask about deliverables
>>>> Jose: What are our potential deliverables for these task forces?
>>>> ... figure out what we want to accomplish FIRST, then decide on the
>>>> framework to make it happen
>>>> Kevin: one thing we want is to publish briefing documents more
>>>> frequently
>>>> <john> so, briefs, memos etc
>>>> Kevin: what issues do we want to address in those briefs?
>>>> <josema> I was thinking of brainstorming about _real_ examples, can
>>>> someone give me one?
>>>> <josema> is* memo one?
>>>> <john> that style of communication
>>>> Daniel: promoting best practices is a positive goal
>>>> <john> broad brush, picking up gov specific context
>>>> <josema> ok, I tend to think we all agree that should be the style
>>>> Daniel: are we informing best practices in our work products?
>>>> <josema> then we need to focus _very_ well Web D* TF, what's in,
>>>> what's not
>>>> <john> topic areas - mobile? accessibility?
>>>> <josema> e.g. should be Flash part of that TF?
>>>> Daniel: we can give governments the tools to improve their web
>>>> content/pages
>>>> Kevin: What would issue briefs contain?
>>>> <john> I would focus on W3C tech - we're not a conduit to adobe /
>>>> macromedia for flash right?
>>>> Kevin: consistency in Group deliverables is important
>>>> <josema> do you remember the discussion about "Web content" ? ;)
>>>> <josema> I propose: HTML, CSS, Scripting, Ajax, Accessibility,
>>>> Mobile Web, i18n
>>>> <josema> rachel: we are short on time, what's the goal for today?
>>>> <josema> ... wrt the Charter?
>>>> <john> +1
>>>> Kevin: everyone - you have until Sunday to comment on Year 2  
>>>> Charter
>>>> ... Chairs will finalize on their call next Wednesday
>>>> John: Define deliverables, outline exact topics we want to tackle
>>>> <john> are, thanks
>>>> <josema> maybe more: what about SVG and Widgets?
>>>> Kevin: will send out list of w3c groups, need to identify those  
>>>> with
>>>> which we need to collaborate
>>>> <josema> Privacy? Math?... list goes on
>>>> <john> my vote, widgets yes, svg no
>>>> <josema> ok
>>>> <josema> I'm trying to take into account what Kevin mentioned about
>>>> not "too restrictive"
>>>> Rachel: are you looking for volunteers at this point?
>>>> Kevin: First let's make sure we have the Charter done, then we can
>>>> get volunteers.
>>>> John: Although we need to make sure that the elements in the  
>>>> Charter
>>>> are within the purview and interests of Group members, so we can  
>>>> get
>>>> volunteers to tackle these issues.
>>>> <Daniel_Bennett> a11y, i18n, HTML, CSS, ECMA, Cool URLs, CSS Media
>>>> formats including print and mobile, Citations/Anchors/XPointers
>>>> Kevin: still looking for more members
>>>> ... we do have good folks on the group now, but can always use more
>>>> help!
>>>> <josema> daniel, I would put Cool URLs, Citations/Anchors/XPointers
>>>> on OGD TF, concentrate here more on the "Webapp/visualization"
>>>> aspect
>>>> <john> I'm not in favour of wishful thinking in the charter
>>>> (ambition, but also realism)
>>>> <dmcallis> After the new charter, does a F2F make sense? Easier to
>>>> involve new members with a concrete meeting.
>>>> Kevin: don't want to set expectations without being able to deliver
>>>> on them.
>>>> <josema> tip: read Charter 1 again, concrete, but not so much, so  
>>>> we
>>>> had room
>>>> John: can we assume that we structure Charter 2 from the baseline  
>>>> of
>>>> where we are today
>>>> Kevin: impressed with level of engagement on the listserv this past
>>>> week
>>>> <josema> I again regret to have missed previous call :(
>>>> John: Comments on Charter 2 due Sunday. Issues resolved, Charter
>>>> finalized next week.
>>>> <Daniel_Bennett> Jose, we miss your actual voice on this one
>>>> <kevin> Jose agree with Daniel keep expecting to hear your voice
>>>> <josema> daniel, kevin, see draft and listserv, I added many
>>>> comments in there!
>>>> <Daniel_Bennett> ok
>>>> <josema> scribe: josema
>>>> Editorial Task Force
>>>> rachel: ETF to bridge policy/technology gap
>>>> ... several volunteers contacted me already
>>>> ... sent draft proposal to listserv
>>>> ... anybody read it?
>>>> <aharvey> I read it.
>>>> <aharvey> I liked it :)
>>>> <dmcallis> I read it... haven't had time to digest or respond
>>>> john: talked about this with Comm
>>>> ... Comm very interested in learning what exactly ETF would do
>>>> ... we mentioned ETF will help us reach those we _need_ to reach as
>>>> a group
>>>> kevin: strongly agree
>>>> brand: semantic web for dummies book
>>>> <john> we can resolve this as our way of working, right?
>>>> josema: please add ETF to draft charter
>>>> rachel: will do
>>>> daniel: should a mention of ETF be added to other groups, so it is
>>>> clear that deliverables go thru ETF before publication?
>>>> kevin: ?? something like that would be awesome
>>>> <Owen>
>>>> [19] 
>>>> 0470
>>>> 396792
>>>>  [19]
>>>> <Daniel_Bennett> yes, thanks Rachel
>>>> <aharvey> no objection
>>>> john: anybody objects to this way of working?
>>>> RESOLUTION: deliverables to go to ETF before publication
>>>> <dmcallis> thanks, all
>>>> [IG ADJOURNED - ETF team stays]
>>>> rachel: daniel, I like your idea of adding ETF mention to other
>>>> groups
>>>> ... in terms of editing work, we mentioned editing window of 2  
>>>> weeks
>>>> ... my plan is to ask people to volunteer depending on topic
>>>> daniel: we can have exceptions, also keep media in mind
>>>> <Rachel> differentiate between "press" pieces and documents "for
>>>> publication"
>>>> [some discussion about how the relationship between Comm and ETF
>>>> should work]
>>>> rachel: ETF happy to review and help, defer to jose how it should
>>>> work
>>>> josema: I'll try to have you joining an eGov/Comm call to discuss
>>>> about it
>>>> ... we are all in same boat and with same goal, very easy to
>>>> understand each other
>>>> adam: we can test out ETF procedures and coordination on the  
>>>> current
>>>> note, since it's revision isn't a priority
>>>> [scribe missed owen's question]
>>>> daniel: publish our "standards" for writing style, etc. and make
>>>> people aware of this
>>>> rachel: next steps, comments on Charter 2 are due on Sunday
>>>> ... suggestions, please use wiki
>>>> ... also white paper, we should have that fairly soon
>>>> <Daniel_Bennett> have people giving deliverable to ETF to note who
>>>> the authors are to allow ETF to contact authors
>>>> rachel: white paper should be our first deliverable
>>>> ... we could even divide up in pieces to work in parallel
>>>> adam: sounds good
>>>> rachel: I want to thank you all again for volunteering
>>>> ... this is a passion of mine
>>>> ... happy to have you joining me for this
>>>> <aharvey> we think you're great too Rachel.
>>>> rachel: really appreciate it, even before starting
>>>> <Daniel_Bennett> Strunk and White
>>>> rachel: daniel, I'll try to put together those "standards" we'll  
>>>> use
>>>> ... if any of you are interested in reworking any piece of the Note
>>>> just tell me
>>>> <aharvey> MLA?
>>>> rachel: let's communicate by email
>>>> Summary of Action Items
>>>> [NEW] ACTION: josema to try get RDFa Gov use cases on TPAC agenda
>>>> [recorded in
>>>> [20]]
>>>> [End of minutes]
>>>>  _________________________________________________________
>>>> Minutes formatted by David Booth's [21]scribe.perl version 1.135
>>>> ([22]CVS log)
>>>> $Date: 2009/06/24 15:38:04 $
>>>>  [21]
>>>>  [22]

Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 09:06:35 UTC