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