Moving the discussion forward

Ann Wrote:

*        Who is JM in this sequence.


JM = John Mertic, new member.

As always I highly value your opinion so will anxiously look forward to your input.

For all, the thread is becoming somewhat unmanageable.  I suggest we create separate discussion threads - e.g. role of the group, group activities going forward, purpose/audience of the workshop, group activity relationship to social web/social activities, group relationship to W3C/Non W3C standards (not necessarily all inclusive, but I hate using .etc as it is the sign of a lazy writer).

I do want to address one topic that was raised, and that was with respect to standards development.  I did not mean to, nor would I support, any standards development in this group.  Rather I see our role with respect to standards as one where we can flesh out the block diagram via the workshop and make solid recommendations to W3C/Other standards bodies for the standards we believe need to be developed to make social business inter- and intra-enterprise ready.

Kind Regards,
Mark

From: Bassetti, Ann [mailto:ann.bassetti@boeing.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 5:21 PM
To: Crawford, Mark; public-socbizcg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Social Biz CG milestones (was: RE: for review - An Intro to Social Business Guide [via W3C Social Business Community Group])

Thanks, Mark for all your comments.

In particular I appreciate your distinction about "social BUSINESS" as opposed to social activities in the public.  I guess I kind of lost sight of that aspect (doh! slaps her forehead!).  Regardless, I'm still hesitant about what we could realistically gain.

I am buried at the moment in some urgent Boeing work, so can't go more into this right now.  Just wanted to acknowledge your mail, and say I will respond later (next few days).

More later ... Ann




From: Crawford, Mark [mailto:mark.crawford@sap.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:02 PM
To: public-socbizcg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Social Biz CG milestones (was: RE: for review - An Intro to Social Business Guide [via W3C Social Business Community Group])

Inline


>The W3C already sponsored 1 workshop and multiple Incubator / Community groups.  A white paper was written, as well as other less formal documents.

MC: To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a workshop focused on Social Business.  If you are referring to the W3C workshop on the future of social networking, then I would submit the focus was entirely different.  As for the incubator group, I would once again submit that the focus was different.   The Jam is the only exercise that I am aware of that focused exclusively on the concept of social business, and although it was a great start, I believe the proposed workshop will serve to take the effort of this group in a direction that is needed if we are to fully understand what the needs and thoughts are of the broader community

     JM: Dunno on the history, but I agree we should identify who the target audience clearly is and what the expected call to action for them should be.

                    MC:  Agreed.  It would be helpful if you could identify the specific changes you would recommend for the Goals and Scope section.

 >I perceive the primary public social tool vendors (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) have little interest to standardize the underlying social technologies (e.g., how to exchange profile info) - because the value of their companies is based on keeping that information locked up.

MC: I would not see this as a reason to not standardize.  Rather I would submit that as we see more and more companies delivering tools to enable social business, we will see the need for standardization grow independent of Facebook and Twitter.  Those organizations are already in some respects becoming in some respects long in the tooth and loosing favor with the younger generations for their personal social needs, and their services are ripe for the picking of software companies who wish to deliver tools that enable a more business focused approach to social.

JM: I think also we are talking consumer space vs enterprise space. Right now, the enterprise space is actively interested in a solution here as what out there ( think Yammer, SF Chatter ) are either lacking adoption and/or not solving the problem space effectively. Part of this is probably the messaging and use-cases, which it sounds like this group can be a catalyst in defining.

                              MC:  Agree again.  My response to Anne was to highlight that many think of social as only applicable to consumer.  Our group is ostensibly looking at enterprise.  Facebook and Twitter have some value - especially in terms of analytics such as what we are doing with HANA, but from a social business standpoint, I am less concerned with their initial participation (disclaimer - SAP and Facebook have had a longstanding relationship) and more concerned with businesses trying to harness social in the enterprise for enterprise cost/efficiency/revenue benefits. My thinking is that If the messaging is correct, and if Facebook/Twitter see a trend that they can leverage, then they will also participate.

>  A separate set of independent geeks - mostly in Silicon Valley and Portland, Oregon areas - are working on creating independent tools.  Those folks apparently want to hack away more-or-less independently.

MC: I would submit that from an enterprise perspective, the last thing we want are independent geeks left the control this space.  Creating a Social Business requires tools that are reliable, supported, and interoperable.

JM: The independent tools may gain limited adoption in the consumer or low end of the SMB market, but interoperability is the name of the game for anyone of reasonable size. I think telling a story around OpenSocial ( once that story firms up ) sounds like a reasonable leverage point there.

                                             MC:  Concur.  Many are working to move OpenSocial to a more mature standards organization footing with a greater focus on enterprise requirements.  The standard itself is gaining traction, and it is clear to me that W3C needs to identify what the relationship between the Social Web and Social Business using OpenSocial should be.

> Work on security mechanisms, privacy, identity, etc is already underway in other working groups.

MC: True.  But how does that negate the need for the workshop?

> I hear several voices on this team enthusiastically promoting a workshop.  Sorry to be a wet blanket and a naysayer, but I am not all clear what the focus nor value would be in holding another workshop.  I do not agree " support for the proposed workshop " is a foregone conclusion.

MC: Hmm.  It would be helpful if you identified the specific objectives of the workshop you disagree with.

> Although IBM and perhaps others are apparently willing to provide some financial support (Yay for those companies!) - my concern is what the W3C would invest (via time and people), what would the W3C get out, and what happens to W3C reputation for going around in circles on this topic.

MC: Once again, I would submit that Social Business as a specific topic is still rather virgin for the W3C - with the exception of the Jam.

>"Social" is a huge topic these days.  I, too, am intensely interested in the subject.  Yet I do not support moving forward with a workshop at this point, for concerns given above.  To change my mind I would need to see A) clear objectives; B) convincing evidence that key players would participate.

MC: It would be helpful if you identified the specific objectives in the draft you disagree with.

JM: What I'm hearing here is a concern for having the target audience and call to action defined better before we move towards a workshop. I guess my question is where do we stand in regards to that at this point?

                                             MC:  Once again, I would point to the draft workshop call for participation.  We identify at a general level who we want to participate, but if you have thoughts on specific organizations or types of organizations we should include, then please suggest them.  In terms of the call for action, I would welcome your thoughts on what might be missing or off topic in the Topics for position papers list in the call for participation.

Kind Regards,
Mark