Re: Strategy for better collaboration within the group and with other groups

I agree with James that in general we should concentrate on one
deliverable at a time.

Note there are *many* possibly relevant CGs. We did outreach to all of
those mentioned in the charter when the WG and IG began.  However, CGs
are not officially standards-track and the W3C does not necessarily
endorse, or even follow, their work - with nearly a thousand CGs, that
would be cognitively impossible. Working Group members are feel free to
help outreach in anyway they see fit if they see overlap.

On 11/10/2014 01:22 AM, James M Snell wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 2:12 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
> <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to share my concern about current state of our
>> collaboration, more precisely I can of course only talk about my
>> impression of it. I would also like to propose dedicating this issue a
>> small share of our time, preferably during next teleconf, IMO the sooner
>> we address it the less chance we leave for upsetting tensions later down
>> the road.
> 
> Elf, please keep in mind that this WG has been active for just over 2
> months. We have a lot on our plate. I would suggest that being a bit
> more patient would be worthwhile...
> 
> [snip]
>>
>> * AS basic schema / schema.org / microformats / other vocabs - at this
>> moment microformats stay listed in various places on our wiki but almost
>> not present in our recent discussions. I remember Tantek mentioning
>> something about interop between AS and microformats when giving +1 to
>> AS2.0 going FPWD
> [snip]
> 
> Yep, and Tantek and I have moved forward on mapping those out [1].
> We're not done, of course, so again, a bit of patience would be
> helpful.
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Activity_Streams/Microformats_Mapping
> 
> [snip]
>>
>> Second, I have impression of our current work very Activity Streams
>> centric. While I find activities a very important *part* of social
>> networking, I also recognize much border spectrum to it. If we look at
>> Use Cases currently listed on Social IG wiki, we will find ones
>> including: skills, affiliations, products+services etc. While of course
>> we can't cover *all of those* requirements within time of this charter,
>> we can at least ensure a clear way for future extensibility.
>>
> 
> I say again: it's been two months. Patience is a good thing.
> 
>>
>> Third and for now last issue. Various other W3C groups work on IMO
>> relevant technologies. Our wiki lists quite few of them:
>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#W3C_Groups For example people
>> participating in Hydra CG develop next generation REST APIs which could
>> cover some of required functionality. Another example Credentials CG
>> attracted people working on Mozilla Open Badges which I consider
>> extremely useful for Use Cases including skills, affiliations etc. I
>> guess clarifying collaboration with Web Schemas group may also take us
>> some time. I would like us to try come up with a better strategy on how
>> we can leverage all that work which people currently do in other groups.
>>
> [snip]
> 
> I'd suggest that perhaps the WG is best served, at the moment,
> focusing on getting a better handle on our own deliverables without
> worrying so much about what other groups are doing, at least for the
> time being. It's perfectly fine if our earlier efforts overlap
> somewhat with what other groups are doing. That's part of the process.
> Once we're a bit more settled on what we're sure we need and pretty
> settled on how we think we need to address those needs, then taking a
> bit more time to reconcile that with what the other groups are doing
> would be beneficial.
> 
> - James
>

Received on Monday, 10 November 2014 13:46:08 UTC