Re: transitions to Working Group'

Dear all
Welcome to new members :-)

This is a reminder that the deadline is approaching to make a final decision
I already submitted a 'not ready yet' response to the survey, based on the
lack of explicit/firm commitment of members to specific actions so far

When at least name 5 members  (not anonymous !!) make an explicit
commitment to deliver some  WG output,  we can consider a transition

So far we have had two negative responses and (one anonymous positive
response which does not make any commitment)

*http://tinyurl.com/op7gg55 <http://tinyurl.com/op7gg55>*

I dont think anonymous responses count when it comes to WG
matters, we need serious committed individuals which are willing
to put their name, (face?), time and weight behind the  proposed work

One of the anonymous entries in the reply form asks what is the charter,
The minimal charter is on the wiki,
https://www.w3.org/community/swisig/wiki/Main_Page
feel free to suggest  how it should evolve it further

To warrant for the success of the WG  we request explicit commitment of
members to goals and actions, and will recommend that W3C considers
requesting stronger and more  (could add this to the charter?)

There are still a few days, so if you think we should transition to WG
please state exactly what is your plan of action, so that we can all
support it
before 10 May at the most.
the form is here

> *http://tinyurl.com/mnr3fqe <http://tinyurl.com/mnr3fqe>*
>

Either way, it will be good to keep thinking along these lines
because the issue will crop up again next year!

This community is now actively recruiting for future WG leaders /co-leaders
so that as soon as we are 'mature' we can make a firm and smooth (!)
transition

Thank you!

PDM

>
>
> PDM
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:16 PM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
> metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Can we take unitl like May 1, 2014 to try to finalize a transition? If by
>> May 1 next we do not all feel comfortable about this we can do a poll and
>> take a consensus based decision.
>>
>> regards
>>
>>
>> Milton Ponson
>> GSM: +297 747 8280
>> PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
>> Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
>> Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for
>> sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide by creating ICT
>> tools for NGOs worldwide and: providing online access to web sites and
>> repositories of data and information for sustainable development
>>
>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
>> addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
>> system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
>> intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee
>> you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
>>    On Sunday, April 20, 2014 3:02 AM, Paola Di Maio <
>> paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>>   Greetings SWISIG members
>>
>> Yesterday I filled out a form to W3C  more or less saying we are not
>> ready yet to transition to WG, (I reply quickly sometimes not to forget)
>>
>> Only after hitting the send button
>> it occurred to me I should have consulted with co-chair and group members
>>
>> We can change our response til 10 May, so if enough ppl think
>> we should transition this year, please stepfforward and
>> state your commitment to make things happen, and we'll resubmit
>>
>> Otherwise, let's see if plans mature in their own time
>>
>> Thanks, happy Spring Holidays to all
>>
>> PDM
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Paola Di Maio via WBS Mailer* <webmaster@w3.org>
>> Date: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 7:45 AM
>> Subject: [wbs] response to 'Determining which Community and Business
>> Groups transitions to Working Group'
>> To: paola.dimaio@gmail.com, team-community-process@w3.org
>>
>>
>> The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Determining
>> which
>> Community and Business Groups transitions to Working Group' (public) for
>> Paola Di Maio.
>>
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Your Community Group or Business Group
>> > ----
>> > Please, name the Community Group or Business Group for which you are
>> > submitting answers.
>> >
>> >
>> Name of your Community Group or Business Group: SEMANTIC WEB INTERFACES
>> (SWI) SIG
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > State of your Community Group or Business Group
>> > ----
>> > Is your Community Group or Business Group:
>> >
>> >
>>
>>  * ( ) Active and ongoing and nearing completion
>>  * ( ) Inactive because it has completed its work
>>  * (x) Active and ongoing and far from completion
>>  * ( ) Inactive because the original scope is no longer relevant or
>> because
>> the CG never got momentum
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Goal of your Community Group or Business Group
>> > ----
>> > Is the goal of your Community Group or Business Group:
>> >
>> >
>>
>>  * (x) To provide a specification
>>  * ( ) To be a discussion forum for specifications done elsewhere
>>  * ( ) Other (please specify)
>> You checked "other", please specify:
>> a high level specificationn
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Status of the spec of your Community Group or Business Group
>> > ----
>> > What are your specification transition plans?
>> >
>>
>>  * ( ) We have already handed off all or part of a specification to a
>> Working Group.
>>
>>  * ( ) We plan to request that a specification transition to a Working
>> Group within six months.
>>
>>  * ( ) We have a specification that is a candidate for transition to a
>> Working Group but have no schedule yet for doing so.
>>  * (x) We do not plan to transition a specification to a Working Group
>> (provide details in the next question).
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > No transition to a Working Group
>> > ----
>> > We do not expect to transition to a Working Group for the following
>> > reasons (check all that apply):
>> >
>> >
>>
>>  * [x] Too early, insufficient number of implementations yet.
>>  * [ ] Too narrow, not a key part of the Open Web Platform.
>>  * [ ] A Community Group or Business Group is good enough, Working Groups
>> have too much bureaucracy.
>>  * [ ] We suspect that key players will not want to make Working Group
>> patent commitments.
>>  * [ ] Too many key players are not Members of W3C and would not want to
>> follow the work into a Working Group.
>>  * [ ] Other (please specify).
>> You checked "other", please specify:
>> exploratory work,  community is  still loosely engaged so far
>> maybe if one or two ears if things mature
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Open comments
>> > ----
>> > Please, let us us know of anything you feel is relevant to complete your
>> > answers.
>> >
>> >
>> Comments:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > These answers were last modified on 19 April 2014 at 02:14:48 U.T.C.
>> > by Paola Di Maio
>> >
>> Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed  until 2014-05-11.
>>
>>  Regards,
>>
>>  The Automatic WBS Mailer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>