Re: Moving the discussion forward

Everyone, my clumsy choice of wording in response to Alberto's question
about the edited versions of the CTO whitepaper and Mark's subsequent
comment about the workshop, which included the phrase "draft some 2013 CG
milestones, including support for the proposed workshop " kicked off a very
long and interesting discussion about the scope and approach for the SBCG
in 2013.  Thanks to all who contributed!  I guess if I had been more
eloquent, I would have phrased it more along the lines of drafting
milestones that would include a go/no go decision for the workshop, since
that decision is one of the things we have to come to consensus on as a
2013 SBCG activity.  Having said that,  I agree that this is valuable input
and has resulted in some actionable sub-threads that will benefit our
efforts.  As a result, I attempted to transfer this email into a discussion
document that we can iterate to group satisfaction at -
http://www.w3.org/community/socbizcg/wiki/Talk:Main_Page .  I took the
liberty of using the categories that Mark described as a starting point.
My apologies in advance if I missed any of the email entries, I had to
combine multiple versions of the email to get what I posted.

Thanks again for taking the time to contribute to this effort!

Regards,

Don Buddenbaum, STSM, FLMI, Chair W3C SBCG
Emerging Social Business Software Standards
IBM Software Group, Strategy
919.543.0346 t/l 441.0346 buddenba@us.ibm.com
SBCG: http://www.w3.org/community/socbizcg/




From: "Crawford, Mark" <mark.crawford@sap.com>
To: "public-socbizcg@w3.org" <public-socbizcg@w3.org>,
Date: 11/15/2012 08:49 AM
Subject: 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