- From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:16:51 +0100
- To: "'Krishna Sankar \(ksankar\)'" <ksankar@cisco.com>
- Cc: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>
Hi Krishna, Thank you for your proposal to work on the project and your suggestion of a phased approach. I feel (as I believe you expressed) that focusing in the near term need not ignore/exclude the potential future areas of study. You wrote: c) Most probably it will be a little rough and anemic participation in the beginning - but if we, as founding members, contribute enough to generate a critical mass, then I am sure the TFs will gather momentum. I'm entirely of this opinion (and in my experience it works if/when the founding team is dedicated and their work is good) but, out of respect for those who have more experience in this (W3C) structure than I, I get the feeling that this is counter to standard W3C process. Christine -----Original Message----- From: public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org [mailto:public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Krishna Sankar (ksankar) Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 9:07 PM To: Karl Dubost; Fabien Gandon Cc: public-social-web-talk@w3.org Subject: RE: New, Unified XG Proposal Agreed. We can look at a document-centric approach to focus the discussions as well as pragmatic deliverables. Would be happy to edit/co-edit work in Privacy and Trust TF and (possibly) contribute to the architecture TF. Don't know if it is the right protocol (i.e. add directly to the wiki), but I have added my names to the docs I would be interested in. Am open to changes as we get more commitment. Some quick points: a) We might not need to work on all documents simultaneously - quality before quantity. b) I think, one use case and one best practices document, per TF, might be sustainable than the current 4 docs. I assume there is some logic behind the distribution c) Most probably it will be a little rough and anemic participation in the beginning - but if we, as founding members, contribute enough to generate a critical mass, then I am sure the TFs will gather momentum. Cheers <k/> |-----Original Message----- |From: public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org [mailto:public-social-web- |talk-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Karl Dubost |Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 11:38 AM |To: Fabien Gandon |Cc: public-social-web-talk@w3.org |Subject: Re: New, Unified XG Proposal | | | |Le 8 févr. 2009 à 13:52, Fabien Gandon a écrit : |> My opinion is that there is material here for several XG having their |> own telecons. Now if we were to go for one XG with several TFs I |> would very strongly recommend having one cycle of telecons per TF |> i.e. each TF should have at least its own monthly telecon. | |There is maybe another way to start this. Being very practical. |The [description][1] for each task force have empty boxes for |deliverables. | |1. Let's have quantifiable deliverables. |2. Align at least two editors for each deliverables. (one writing, one |reviewing) |3. An editor can edit one and only deliverable. (to avoid the workload |delaying others) 4. The editor will spend half a day to one full day a |week on that work. | |Volunteers for which documents? | | |Rationale: if we have plenty of editors and people that will be |workable, if people are midly able to commit to this, we will have nice |discussions but we will not achieve a lot. | | |[1]: http://esw.w3.org/topic/UnifiedSocialXG | | |-- |Karl Dubost |Montréal, QC, Canada |http://twitter.com/karlpro |
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 09:17:35 UTC