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

Although we are not currently staffed for such an effort, the IG has the chartered responsibility for liaison for the Social Activity and should be relieving the WG of the need to spend WG cycles on that topic.  If/when we get sufficient mass to take this on, we will.  In the meantime, I agree with James that we are still young and we should continue to focus on our agreed upon priorities.

Best Regards,
Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Halpin [mailto:hhalpin@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 8:46 AM
To: public-socialweb@w3.org
Subject: 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 13:51:01 UTC