W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > March 2016

Re: Will your Community Group meet during TPAC 2016?

From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:17:18 -0700
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Message-id: <A118DCDC-A059-45C3-A907-FD7AF9CD6ACB@apple.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>

I really like seeing the interest and Dan's suggestions!

And I personally like the idea of having 2 half-days instead of 1 entire day. This could really help some people already booked on just one of those days to attend the other day.

@Danbri, given the fact that "Digital Publishing has requested Monday/Tuesday", do you want to go head and make an official request for Thursday/Friday mornings before it's too late? (hopefully it's still ok) Then we'll have to make it real :-)


> On Mar 30, 2016, at 6:54 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> On 30/03/2016 09:23 , Dan Brickley wrote:
>> From a broader W3C perspective, having Community Groups involved at
>> TPAC is a very positive thing. At the Chairs Breakfast meeting during
>> last year's TPAC I argued for greater inclusion of Community Group
>> chairs and participants within W3C activities. There are now a large
>> number of CGs across many topics, and everything we can do to
>> encourage grassroots coordination and communication amongst these
>> groups, and between these groups and the more heavyweight full Working
>> Groups is super valuable.
> While I very well understand the hesitations of those who already have
> their TPAC week well booked, as well as the issues inherent in not
> having everyone in the room, I think there would be great value in
> meeting for TPAC.
> Discussing things in the meeting does not preclude discussion in the GH
> tracker; it just means that whatever comes out of the discussion we need
> to make sure is properly summarised in the relevant issues. Being able
> to work things out face to face can be very helpful.
> This can also be a great opportunity to reach out to other groups and
> people on a variety of topics where we connect. I don't think that a
> RDFa-versus-Microdata-versus-Microformats discussion is of any use to
> this group, but a few of us could chat to the HTML people about it. The
> bib people could talk to DPUB, etc. TPAC is as much about meeting in the
> group as it is about meeting outside the group.
>> * I'd suggest (without having yet consulted the other CG chairs) that
>> a single TPAC CG meeting around schema.org would be preferable to
>> having 10+ different meetings for the various schema.org-related CGs
>> listed above
>> * That the spirit of the event is "for those who are attending TPAC
>> anyway, or quite likely to for other reasons", rather than "A
>> must-attend meeting for anyone involved at schema.org"
>> * It looks like the offer to CGs is that we can have (several?) 2h
>> meeting slots. I'd suggest we do something like a couple of mornings
>> (2x 2 slots) if available, one focussed on specific schema topics, the
>> other on broader issues that take advantage of likely attendees e.g.
>> publisher/webmaster experience with these technologies, or the
>> relationship between microdata/rdfa/json-ld with Web Components.
> Agreed on all of the above.
> -- 
> • Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
> • http://science.ai/ — intelligent science publishing
> •
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2016 23:18:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:24 UTC