- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:39:15 -0500 (EST)
- To: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
- Cc: "'Renato Iannella'" <renato@nicta.com.au>, public-social-web-talk@w3.org, "'Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group'" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Christine Perey wrote: > Hi Harry, > > Quickly: > 1. Perhaps I am missing something but I really don't understand what is > *new* in the proposals voiced on list this morning (compared with the > proposals voiced by the same participants 40-50 days ago, sorry I don't have > time to go digging those up). I am suggesting that we give up editing charter [2] as it is too big, do not use task-forces, but try to cover the topics in a smaller charter with more focussed deliverables. > A. We know that there is an experienced group of W3C editors and chairs > who have good experience with small, focused groups and many cuts and > bruises to indicate that the alternative (an inclusive charter) is a bad > idea. And that you wish to spare us all the pain. > It's great to have the experience and to learn from it, however, the > future does not always, perfectly reflect the past. See point 2 which is in > your favor. Given that I have seen only about 2 people argue for this, and most of the list is silent, I see no reason why not. In particular, Incubator Groups are supposed to be light-weight. > B. The problem is that the group of potential participants has expanded > vis a vis past W3C work charters. > I believe that the consensus in response to a question posted to the > list was (is) to have one XG (and there remain very good reasons for this) > *AND* to include/embrace the many new activities which are appropriate and > can be covered in the topic of Social Web XG. I believe you are not familiar with W3C process. The amount of participants on this list (70 some) is not huge or abnormal. > Let's be clear: is your proposal (today, as in the past) that the data > portability and interoperability in social network activities be conducted > in a new XG [1] and that separate XGs (and mailing lists, and telecons, etc) > be created for other all the other topics within scope? No, I am arguing that we have a single charter with a few deliverables, and no unnecessary task force bureaucracy. That reflects the actual partipation in the group. I think charter [1] can be revised to fit the necessary topics. > Or are you suggesting that all other topics (see the task forces in > [2]) be either (a) cast aside until those who have time/desire create new XG > within W3C or (b) are not of interest to the W3C now or in the future? All these topics can be dealt with in a smaller number of deliverables. Furthermore, the precise terms you have used to describe these topics are a bit confusing to some people as well. Also, topics you have not covered in your list, such as accessibility and internationalization, are actually just as important as "contextual data" I think. > 2. Another thing which is NOT NEW (and worrisome) is that those on the list > who have a stake in the outcome of this discussion/decision (more than I, > certainly) are not expressing themselves. Perhaps they are hoping this discussion will end soon. I do, and I am wondering why we do not simply follow past successful models. [1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebXGCharter [2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/UnifiedSocialXG > > 3. with regards to a mobile specific deliverable or a mobile-specific > agenda, I will begin a separate thread. > > Christine > > cperey@perey.com > mobile (Swiss): +41 79 436 68 69 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-social-web-talk-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Harry Halpin > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 9:54 AM > To: Renato Iannella > Cc: public-social-web-talk@w3.org > Subject: Re: Proposal: Keep Group Unified, Don't Divide into Taskforces > > On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Renato Iannella wrote: > >> >> On 26 Feb 2009, at 19:57, Harry Halpin wrote: >> >>> I feel the proposed charter may be too large, due to having too many >>> deliverables (15 at my last count). A smaller charter with (5) >>> deliverables was written earlier. >> >> >> I agree with Harry, and I indicated so earlier [1] - from my current >> experiences in running an XG. >> >> This is not to say that what was has been proposed is not valuable, >> but taken in the context of a W3C Incubator Group, the current scope >> is significantly more than most W3C multi-year multi-working group > Activities. >> >> Event the smaller charter [2] can be modified to include the core outputs: >> 1 - Use Case/Requirements >> 2 - State-of-the-Art Report (best practices) >> 3 - Final Report (next steps) >> >> I also strongly believe that the Policy/Privacy/Trust work simply be >> moved to the W3C PLING Interest Group (as argued in [1]) as the >> evaluation of the XG Charter [3] stipulates: > > Note that I concur here, as PLING has extensive experience in this area. > Another option is that PLING could write it in joint with the Social Web XG, > if there are experts that are part of Social Web XG but not PLING. > However, it might be simpler just to have those experts joing PLING. > > Second, we do have a few mobile phone people involved. In the smaller > proposed charter [2] it might be feasible to add a report that focuses > specifically on the future of *mobile* social networking. Although I > strongly believe in one Web that steps across mobile and non-mobile > boundaries, a report that details the advantages of mobile networking, > accessibility, and how the W3C can co-ordinate future work in this area > could be useful. However, in the second, larger proposed charter [2], there > "contextual data" and "user experience" volunteers are missing, and the > charter is basically empty. Perhaps there is a lack of interest from the > mobile community, despite their heavy presence at the workshop? If not, now > would be a good time to speak up. > > [1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebXGCharter > [2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/UnifiedSocialXG > > >> "It is desirable to take ideas related to specific technology >> solutions that are already being worked on elsewhere (within or >> outside of the W3C) back to the place in which the work is taking place" >> >> I suspect this will be a major discussion point at the teleconference >> next week. >> >> Cheers... Renato Iannella >> NICTA >> >> [1] >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-social-web-talk/2009Feb/00 >> 46.html> [2] <http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebXGCharter> >> [3] <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/about.html#Scope> >> > > -- --harry Harry Halpin Informatics, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 10:39:52 UTC