Re: Consolidation of Task-forces

Tim Anglade wrote:
>
> Hey there.
>
> Le 10 févr. 09 à 20:34, Harry Halpin a écrit :
> [
[snip]
> 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. 

What vision? That's a plan for deliverables. It's just saying, instead
of 7 task-forces spread among what appear to be about 20 people
delivering what appear to be 18 reports, let's go for 4 reports that we
can actually get done, and assume that we have a core of about 15-20
people working on things, which is what we seem to have. I am against
putting things in the charter we cannot reasonably deliver within a
year. The criteria for "reasonably deliver" is that these do not already
have someone who wants to work on them, i.e. volunteer to edit.

 I could see the case for a separate "Business" report, if people felt
getting into the nitty-gritty on micropayments and such would be
something they would work on.


Also, most of the deliverables seemed to be reports. If it appears one
of the reports has too broad a scope and is getting to big, it would
make sense to split it. But why *begin* saying we're going to write 18
reports, especially if they seem to have attracted little attention from
the list?

 There are marketing firms that write reports on this stuff all the
time, no reason to duplicate their efforts. A single final report with a
few subsidary documents that aim explicitly at future standardization is
the usual product of XGs.

> 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.
 Perhaps more people from industry will e-mail the list with their
opinions? There were quite a few at the workshop, hopefully they will be
speak. If you or anyone else do feel that more people would be
interested, please have them join the list and speak up. If they do not
join the list and speak up, I think it's unwise to assume they will
speak up at a later point. I do think if get some practical stuff and
interaction with codebases out, people might speak up.

I do not think 18 reports is very practical or will even be noticed by
industry. I will not touch the Unified Charter till I hear from more people.

On a personal aside, it does appear that industry has already started
voting with their feet towards the "Open stack" of OpenSocial, OpenID,
etc. To me, comparing the "OpenStack" to other stacks and getting this
working with the rest of the W3C mission, accessibility,
internationalization, mobile phones, trust and privacy etc. is a good
place to begin.

>> 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.
OK, I'll make the doodle this weekend, although some else could do it
beforehand if they wish and send it to the list.

>> 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
>>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
>
>
> - - - - - - -
> 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 20:35:44 UTC