Re: Invited expert - Change of policy?

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Karl Dubost
<karl+w3c@la-grange.net<karl%2Bw3c@la-grange.net>
> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I thought in the initial discussions that the Incubator Group would be
> [opened to the public][1]. Was there a [change of policy][2]?


The group is open to the public: "This group primarily conducts its work on
the public mailing list public-xg-socialweb@w3.org" and "
We actively seek collaboration and participation from the wider Web
community, and so will have many Invited Experts and guests from non-W3C
communities." [1] So I believe the Incubator Group is open to the public,
with two main constraints:

1)  "While participation from all is welcome on the public list-serv,
editors of XG deliverables will be W3C members or Invited Experts"

and

2) For taking formal consensus etc. I'm assuming Member organizations and
Invited Experts will be those involved in the consensus.

This makes sense, as both formal decisions and editorship require a level of
commitment, and an explicit agreement to the W3C RF Patent Policy.
Therefore, I would strongly advise those wishing to be deeply involved in
the group to apply for Invited Expert status, and expect little problems in
this regard. To reiterate DanBri's earlier point, the public e-mail list
will be open to the public (of course!) and telecons will be as well.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/charter

           cheers,
               harry




>
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 02:13:36 GMT
> In Re: Poll: Who would join Social Web XG(s)? 1 or 2 XGs? Telecons? from
> Dan Brickley on 2009-01-23 (public-social-web-talk@w3.org from January
> 2009)
> At
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-social-web-talk/2009Jan/0031.html
>
> I have no assumption that W3C Membership should be
> a precondition for participation in the XG(s). A
> public list that the public are welcome to
> participate in, and telecons open to those without
> member affiliation too. I don't care quite how
> this is cludged/managed in terms of W3C process;
> but I really think we'll get nowhere if the
> partipation model excludes those many people
> working outside of W3C. Is anyone proposing a
> Membership-based participation model?
>
>
>
> [1]:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-social-web-talk/2009Jan/0031
> [2]: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/43434/instructions
>
>
> --
> Karl Dubost
> Montréal, QC, Canada
> http://twitter.com/karlpro
>
>