RE: Issue-19 questions remain - a proposal

Geez louise, Harry. I think I am not on the same page with you. And the recurrent statement that this is closed is frustrating. 

People need to discuss stuff. I thought that's what we are discussing. Can't you let us do that?

I may need to talk to you on the phone to understand where you are on this.

  -- Ann


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Halpin [mailto:hhalpin@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:32 PM
> To: henry.story@bblfish.net
> Cc: Bassetti, Ann; public-socialweb@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue-19 questions remain - a proposal
> 
> 
> 
> On 04/22/2015 01:26 AM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
> >
> >> On 22 Apr 2015, at 01:03, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 04/22/2015 12:53 AM, Bassetti, Ann wrote:
> >>> Could you hack together a prototype of this idea, Henry? I vaguely get
> the gist, but it would be so much more useful if I could see your idea in
> action. And, you know, Demos R Us!
> >>>
> >>> Can someone say how the pump.io or indieweb or any other community
> discusses stuff? That is, outside of email.
> >>>
> >>> I agree we seem to be guinea pigs, demonstrating a real-life social
> >>> use case.  (I was going to say "rat hole" .. but that seemed to be
> >>> mixing my rodents!)
> >>>
> >>
> >> However, note that Tantek has not said that the WG has to use pump.io
> >> or IndieWeb to communicate. He has just said he won't check email, so
> >> I suggested that he prefers IRC.
> >
> > I think he mentioned blogs a lot in my conversations with him, as per
> > links in issue-19. As mentioned in this thread IRC is not a good one
> > to many communication tool, and Tantek knows that, and he knows we
> > know that, so he can't be suggesting something like that. Donald Davidson
> principle of Charity Harry:
> 
> Read this:
> "RESOLVED: IRC and email and wiki are our canonical communication
> channels and if there are dropped balls we handled them as needed. For
> example, concern that not everybody was reading the mailing list which is
> fixed by bringing up things in the wiki."[1]
> 
> I think "blogs" are not listed as part of our resolution to issue 19.
> One can of course blog and we encourage to use your approach in that that
> re self dog-fooding, but our resolution was not to mandate everyone read
> everyone else's blog, but simply use IRC, email, and wikis in whatever order
> or way they prefer.
> 
> Thus, the issue remains closed and I also don't have time to indefinitely
> discuss what should be fairly obvious. Further bringing it up during the
> telecon will be off-topic.
> 
>   cheers,
>       harry
> 
> [1]
> http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-04-

> 14/line/1429031972038
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

> >
> >> So, thus, if you wish to discuss your user-storie with everyone, the
> >> IG can host a meeting. For just tantek, you can find tantek in IRC.
> >>
> >> I think the idea is great Henry and you should proto-type.
> >
> > Ok, but we want to include Tantek too, and build something using
> > actual standards to get going that he can agree to.
> >
> > So do we have a winner here?
> >
> >>
> >> Yet other WGs get by via IRC, wiki, and email. Thus, the issue
> >> remains closed.  As said earlier, I think the underlying issue is
> >> social and a difference of opinion. At the W3C, we must 'live with'
> >> others differences of opinion to get specs to get to work.
> >
> > what we are discussing here is are technical problems of having the
> > group communicate. I think we know that Tantek agrees that blogs are
> > fine. So we just need to make sure we have a policy about publishing
> > things this way, so that members who don't then follow the game, can
> > not complain afterwards of having been left out of the conversation when
> it comes to voting.
> >
> >>
> >>  cheers,
> >>    harry
> >>>  -- Ann
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: henry.story@bblfish.net [mailto:henry.story@bblfish.net]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 3:41 PM
> >>>> To: Halpin Harry
> >>>> Cc: public-socialweb@w3.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: Issue-19 questions remain - a proposal
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 21 Apr 2015, at 23:22, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -- Is there a way for the wiki to send a notification when there
> >>>>>> is an update? Does that happen via the Watchlist? (Personally I
> >>>>>> find it hard to have to go look, randomly, for updates. That
> >>>>>> feels really
> >>>>>> unproductive.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We might be able to, although that would flood the mailing list.
> >>>>> Thus, it seems wiser to simply note major changes in the telecon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -- Should we agree to use the "Discussion" pages?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We could, or just see the note re IRC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Or is IRC the place for conversation?  It's great to use Loqi to
> >>>>>> tell! someone
> >>>> (who's not present) something. It's great that there are daily logs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course, the larger problem may be some people simply may not
> >>>>> want to discuss with each other, due to time constraints or
> >>>>> fundamental disagreements. Again, that's not a WG issue per se nor
> >>>>> solvable by a resolution. We cannot, for example, make a
> >>>>> resolution saying "Tantek, you have to spend whatever time it
> >>>>> takes to agree with bblfish even though you two disagree about how
> specs should be built."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That being said, I think the IG should volunteer to host a
> >>>>> discussion over Henry's stories.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'd like to stick the WG to technical topics that are clear and
> >>>>> delimited rather than working style differences that are open-ended.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think Anne is asking: "how would this work even if people were
> >>>> willing to discuss things". Clearly if people don't want to listen
> >>>> to each other and discuss anything, but are just pushing an agenda
> >>>> then it is going to be difficult to get to anyway close to a
> >>>> consensus, and consensus building is the mission of the W3C.
> >>>>
> >>>> I understand that there are very strong divergences of methods and
> >>>> undersanding of the space we are in. I have gone through all of
> >>>> them myself at various points in the last 10 years. In any case at
> >>>> the face to face it was agreed in fact that the group is not going
> >>>> to push for one standard because the divergences are too strong at
> >>>> the moment. But for the divergences to reduce then we need to have
> communication.
> >>>>
> >>>> So let's assume we do want to communicate, and look at the issues
> >>>> we can deal with, namely buidling a process for communication.
> >>>> After all we are trying to build a social web. Now there are a
> >>>> number of tools that one needs to build to have a social web.
> >>>>
> >>>> One needs a way to send everyone in a group a message to alert them
> >>>> of some project or idea, so that the whole group can focus its
> >>>> attention on a particular topic. What tools can one use for this?
> >>>>
> >>>> a) mailing lists have until now been very good and served the W3C
> >>>> and IETF well, as they allow a message to be sent from one to many
> >>>> b) Wikis are not good unless the whole wiki has an RSS feed that
> >>>> people would be expected to add to their blog reader and poll
> >>>> regularly. This as you point out might be very noisy.
> >>>> c) IRC channels have a way to ping one person, but not to ping the
> >>>> whole group  ( the gitter chat for github has an @all, but that
> >>>> ends up working by sending every
> >>>>   member an e-mail )
> >>>>
> >>>> So if e-mail is out by Tantek's decision, and neither wikis nor irc
> >>>> channels are the right tool for the job, then we have the following
> question:
> >>>>
> >>>> Q1: How would one do one to many communication using the Social
> Web
> >>>> without relying on e-mail?
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a question we MUST answer. It should be part of our user
> >>>> stories, since it is holding us up here. (But it is difficult to
> >>>> answer this if we don't have a channel to communicate about the
> >>>> various ideas on how to answer it, before we build it ).
> >>>>
> >>>> If we are to be able to do this now, using tools at our disposal,
> >>>> we need to use existing standards.
> >>>> Lukily I think they are available, and have been for 10 years. We
> >>>> could do it like this:
> >>>>
> >>>> One answer is that the Social Web WG could have a URI, lising each
> >>>> member of the group by their WebID, and that each WebID profile
> >>>> could describe that user including a foaf:weblog relation to their
> >>>> blog ( which has a relation to their RSS Feed where they can post their
> messages ).
> >>>>
> >>>> Eg the social Web WG would have
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#grp> foaf:member
> >>>> <http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me>,
> >>>>
> <http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/foaf.rdf#me>, ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Then each of these WebID profiles would have a relation relating
> >>>> the user to a blog like this:
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me> foaf:weblog
> >>>> <http://bblfish.net/blog/> .
> >>>>
> >>>> Then by a drag and drop operation on the Social Web foaf:Group into
> >>>> a feed reader, the feed reader could fetch all those blogs, find
> >>>> the linked rss feeds, and poll those regularly ( once a day at
> >>>> least ), and show the group member what others have read. Perhaps
> >>>> we'd have to agree that blogs related to social web WG would be
> >>>> tagged by a special tag, so that we could filter out people's cat
> >>>> pictures from the discussion relevant to the topic. The W3C could index
> all those posts in an archive.
> >>>>
> >>>> To do this we would not need to invent anything new, but we could
> >>>> use existing standards such as:
> >>>> • Atom feeds
> >>>> • foaf profiles
> >>>>
> >>>> We'd still perhaps need to agree on a link relation to state that
> >>>> one atom entry was a response to another one. Is this all we need to
> do?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Henry
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Social Web Architect
> >>>> http://bblfish.net/

> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> > Social Web Architect
> > http://bblfish.net/

> >

Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 23:42:26 UTC