W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-social-web-talk@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Consolidation of Task-forces

From: Tim Anglade <tim.anglade@af83.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:11:05 +0100
Message-Id: <E4CB1764-E0E5-4675-9F42-01430D12AC2B@af83.com>
To: public-social-web-talk@w3.org

Hey there.

Le 10 févr. 09 à 20:34, Harry Halpin a écrit :

>    Looking at the Unified Charter and then activity on this list, it's
> pretty obvious we have too many task forces and not enough people to
> commit [1]. I see no reason why we should not consolidate the task
> forces. I'd rather aim for a smaller amount of quality deliverables  
> that
> include running code than innumerable reports on the current state of
> play in social networking. Remember - the point of an W3C XG is to
> figure out what needs to be *standardized* Therefore, I suggest:
> 1) That the Landscape and Business Task force merge and produce a  
> single
> report, talking about the current landscape, business potentials, and
> future for W3C standardization in the area of social networking. It
> appears that Tim Anglade and Christine Perey would appear to be  
> willing
> to edit this document. This report will be the main proposal put  
> forward
> for future work to the rest of the W3C once the XG ends.
> Also, note that internationalization and access for people of all  
> levels
> of abilities has been a strong point for the W3C, and this should
> clearly be part of the final report.

This merger limits the scope of both to their intersection

> 2) That the Privacy and Trust Group Task Force merge with the  
> Contextual
> Data Task force. It seems contextual data is also code for mobile
> phones, so obviously Distributed Architecture should take this into
> account. It appears Krisha Sankar has an interest in editing this. A
> single deliverable that inspects current solutions would be good.


> 3) That the Distributed Architectures and Interoperability task forces
> merge, and produce a single document that maps data-formats from
> differing networks and makes a case for distributed social networking.
> Fabien Gandon, Joaquin Salvachua and Krishna Sankar have all expressed
> interest in editing here.


Okay, before we get to the rest : I object to all those mergers for  
the additional, simple reason that dom said (off-list) that Task  
Forces and Deliverables don't need to have editors attached before  
being submitted for sponsorship. Or before starting, for that matter.

Maybe they won't all get picked up at first. Maybe not at all in the  
course of the XG. But what's the hurt in letting them be and see if  
they attract interest as the group grows larger? Plus, I've seen  
several people volunteer for editing them that you forgot to mention  
in your rundown.

> First thing we do as an XG is we jointly produce a use-case document
> that shows how business practices, best practices, privacy and trust,
> and distributed architectures can work together.
> Finally, we see if we can find or help produce three interoperable
> implementations (ideally building off of and working with existing
> code-bases, such as that put forward by Henry Story) that demonstrate
> running code that fulfills these ideas. Ideally, at least one of these
> code-bases would be mobile-phone based.
> Instead of 7 task forces with lots of report-based deliverables, we  
> get
> three reports, the first 2 high-level, the latter 2 technical, and  
> some
> demo code.
> 1) Final Report to W3C
> 2) Use-Cases
> 3) Distributed Architecture and Interoperability Report and Mapping
> 4) Privacy and Trust Report
> 5) Code
> We do a single telecon and mailing list at first, with option of
> bifurcating into more as needed based on task-forces once task-forces
> get going.

All of the above is logical if we agree on your predicament, which I  
don't. And I object to.

> Also, we call it "Social Web" XG, as that name seems most popular [2].

That I agree with. It was not my first choice but the vote was clear.

> Lastly, I'm happy to help chair, but I want a co-chair. Dan Brickley,
> Renato Ianella, and Fabien Gandon have also said they would be up for
> chairing, and Christine has done a good job de-factor chairing.  
> Perhaps
> people should choose between chairing and editing?

Wait a second. Two semantic web chairs? No offense but that's a recipe  
for disaster. This is not semantic web, take 2, guys. This is a  
separate effort. Chairmanship should reflect the diversity of our  
backgrounds, opinions and debates.

Also : composition of the group and the chair should probably reflect  
that the W3C is part Academic and part Industry. Just my two cents.

> If there are not objections, I'll refactor the charter this coming
> weekend.

I object. **Strongly.**

My problem with your whole proposal is that it negates the diversity  
and industry appeal this group should have. As one of the few business  
guys posting regularly on this list, let me tell you that I doubt any  
industrial will follow the vision you outline. Instead of closing  
doors (by merging task forces and the like) we should try to open  
them. Again, I understand your idea of doing stuff with what we have  
now. But since we don't need editors attached everywhere, I strongly  
feel we should keep an open mind to let the people who we are missing  
right now join in later.

> We can also make another Doodle talking about who would want to
> join which of the consolidated task-forces, edit which documents, and
> chair.

That seems like a fair step — If we don't make some Task Forces  
disappear before submitting them to a vote.

> I'd like to see the charter go to AC membership for voting fairly
> shortly, say be Feb 23rd.

That I agree with. Let's move fast but not skip steps in our debate.

>       thanks,
>          harry
> [1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/UnifiedSocialXG
> [2] http://www.doodle.com/4zdqm65sa8qmey8w


- - - - - - -
Tim Anglade | directeur, pôle « Turbulences » | af83
42, boulevard de Sébastopol | 75003 Paris | France
1436, Howard St | San Francisco | CA 94103 | USA
Tel : +33 1 42 72 33 32
Mob : +33 6 35 92 77 58
skype : tim_anglade
Web : www.af83.com

This email is:  [ ] bloggable   [ ] ask first   [X] private
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 20:11:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:25:11 UTC