Re: Moving the discussion forward

On 11/16/2012 5:26 AM, Alberto Manuel wrote:
> Hi Lads:
>
> I darft a proposal for the workshop using the link Don provided.

Can you clarify, which link?  I tried following Don's link and I got a 
Not Found.  Thanks.

>
> Still, I think is very important the W3C position on this for 
> guidance, that I think is missing and the group can be heading to 
> wrong direction of what is tiring to achieve.
>
> This also applies for the milestones the group want to accomplish.
>
> Best
>
> Alberto.
>
> 2012/11/15 Donald Buddenbaum <buddenba@us.ibm.com 
> <mailto:buddenba@us.ibm.com>>
>
>     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
>     <http://draft%20some%202013%20CG%20milestones,%20including%20support%20for%20the%20proposed%20workshop> .
>      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 <tel:919.543.0346> t/l 441.0346 buddenba@us.ibm.com
>     <mailto:buddenba@us.ibm.com>
>     SBCG: http://www.w3.org/community/socbizcg/
>
>     Inactive hide details for "Crawford, Mark" ---11/15/2012 08:49:22
>     AM---Ann Wrote: * Who is JM in this sequence."Crawford, Mark"
>     ---11/15/2012 08:49:22 AM---Ann Wrote: *  Who is JM in this sequence.
>
>     From: "Crawford, Mark" <mark.crawford@sap.com
>     <mailto:mark.crawford@sap.com>>
>     To: "public-socbizcg@w3.org <mailto:public-socbizcg@w3.org>"
>     <public-socbizcg@w3.org <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Alberto Manuel
> http://ultrabpm.wordpress.com/
> http://pt.linkedin.com/in/albertomanuel
>