Re: Issue-19 questions remain - a proposal

On 04/22/2015 01:41 AM, Bassetti, Ann wrote:
> Geez louise, Harry. I think I am not on the same page with you. And the recurrent statement that this is closed is frustrating. 

It *is* closed officially. Henry is motioning to re-open. I'm arguing
against as he seems not to have read the resolution:

"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]

Every other WG has IRC, a mailing list, and a web-page. Given ISSUE-19
is closed and, as agreed on by Wendy Seltzer, there are no process
issues here in that resolution, I see no point to re-open.

If Henry wants to talk to Tantek, he can just go to the IG or IRC.

> 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.

The reason why Tantek (and likely quite a few others) are not reading
the mailing list is precisely because discussions like this predominate,
rather than discussions that tackle open design of the API and
outstanding issues in the existing spec. Worse, these discussions are
wasting time on our telecon.

 I agree there should be a forum for free-form discussion where
basically *nothing* is out of scope as well, which is chartered to be
the Social IG. So, I hope further free-form discussion can be moved to
the IG where it belongs.

After this email, I will simply consider any more emails on this closed
issue off topic and will not respond, as I also don't have infinite time
to waste re-stating the rather obvious resolution of the issue.


>   -- Ann
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Harry Halpin []
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:32 PM
>> To:
>> Cc: Bassetti, Ann;
>> Subject: Re: Issue-19 questions remain - a proposal
>> On 04/22/2015 01:26 AM, wrote:
>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 01:03, Harry Halpin <> 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 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
>>>> 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]
>> 14/line/1429031972038
>>>> 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: []
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 3:41 PM
>>>>>> To: Halpin Harry
>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Issue-19 questions remain - a proposal
>>>>>>> On 21 Apr 2015, at 23:22, Harry Halpin <> 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
>>>>>> <> foaf:member
>>>>>> <>,
>> <>, ...
>>>>>> Then each of these WebID profiles would have a relation relating
>>>>>> the user to a blog like this:
>>>>>> <> foaf:weblog
>>>>>> <> .
>>>>>> 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
>>> Social Web Architect

Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 23:53:51 UTC