Re: Efforts towards creating a Working Group

Hi Antonin,

The work in this group is fundamental to my projects, so I am very keen on seeing this succeed. Although I cannot commit to concrete time commitment, I can commit to demonstrate both server side and client side implementations. I am currently using 1 server side implementation (Ruby + SPARQL) and 3 client side implementations (Ruby, JavaScript, TypeScript) which are in the prototyping/beta stage, including the Airtable client.  Although these are private repositories on Github, I am planning to move some towards public repositories. Depending on what is required to satisfy the "demonstration" requirement, I can provide video demos or accelerate the move to a public repo. I can also make updates to be more compatible with REST principles.

Regards,
Gregory

Gregory Saumier-Finch | CTO | La culture crée - Culture Creates | c. (514) 316-6973 | culturecreates.com <http://culturecreates.com/> 

Nous reconnaissons que notre travail, ainsi que celui de nos partenaires, a lieu sur les territoires autochtones dans tout le Canada.
We recognize that our work, and the work of our partners, takes place on Indigenous territories across Canada.

> On Jun 21, 2022, at 7:47 AM, Antonin Delpeuch <antonin@delpeuch.eu> wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I wanted to make it visible that we have a project of migrating from our
> current Community Group (CG) to a W3C Working Group (WG). This is a more
> officially W3C-endorsed structure which has the powers to publish
> recommendations (i.e. sorts of standards). This would give more
> visibility to the protocol, and probably foster its adoption on the long
> run.
> 
> Creating a Working Group is a bit more involved than a Community Group.
> The summary of what we need for this can be found as "todo" items in our
> draft charter for the WG:
> https://reconciliation-api.github.io/charter/working_group_charter.html
> 
> In particular, I draw your attention to the following points:
> 
> - we need some concrete time commitment from one or a few organizers for
> the working group (which might require coordination with our respective
> organizations - or even funding applications?). Typically, looking at
> other working groups, there is a lead committing to some percentage of a
> Full-Time Equivalent (sometimes as little as 0.01 FTE) and other members
> committing to be active in discussions. Who would be motivated to play a
> role in this?
> 
> - unlike a CG which can run indefinitely, a WG has a fixed term during
> which it should produce its outcomes. We are also asked to come up with
> a timeline of our deliverables and other milestones. Therefore, once he
> WG starts we need to be relatively quick to publish our specs
> officially. On my side, I am wondering at which stage of maturity for
> the specs we want to be at, when migrating to a WG. In particular, I
> opened a discussion some weeks ago about changing the API to make it
> more compatible with REST principles: if we go ahead with this proposal,
> I suspect it would be useful to have already written up (and ideally
> adopted, in a few systems) such new specs before migrating to a WG. What
> do you think?
> 
> - to move our specs to a "Proposed Recommendation", we need to
> demonstrate a few implementations of it, so it could be useful to have
> an idea of who could commit to implementing the latest specs on their
> side (as a reconciliation service or client) as part of this effort.
> 
> Also, because we have many organizations represented in this group, I
> wonder if this migration to a WG would be a good opportunity to apply
> for some network funding for this. I have the feeling that we could be
> quite convincing (with our activity as a CG so far, our many different
> implementations), and it should be doable to work as a group since we
> have relatively clear separations of responsibilities from the start
> (each organization implements the API in its own context).
> 
> I am very interested to read what you think of all this!
> 
> Antonin
> 
>