Re: moving to Community Group?

> I'm not sure that new community group would be suitable than FSW XG

if - for actual - community of developers, i think FSW XG could be
good enough as
as place, maybe, particularly for developers.
However, W3C CG could have a certain benefits over this XG:

- Lower needs for people's participation, maybe it wouldn't be so
"global" as Drumbeat,
but - certainly more attractive for the wide participation - than
usual W3C processes.

- Transparent Chairs system -- in absence of Organization and
Responsibility - FSW still has an actual "Chairs" that make some
decisions, in this case - that is - simply the most active or the most
interested.

--
i won't advocate for one or another strategy here, i'll explain my and
mine friends experience with this FSW XG:

so far - most of the people i'v talked on FBX or other organizational
mailing lists the products of which may have a significant impact on
the popularization of FSWebs - in one or another way, doesn't know of
FederatedSocialWeb.net at all. I'v tried to explain, provided the
links etc.
and these who finally get there to see what's that's FSW is about - in
good case see a resource with links and description.
Non developers see - see Incubator..  incubator? .. and go away. Same
result - people could receive from Wikipedia and previous
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/SocialWeb/.
 Ofc. - here is a Mailing list, i don't know more about, that -  our
XCCC (the community of 5 (6 if Apache Wave would be for wider
federation, ever) concurrent editing social projects aimed to federate
at least with each-other) collaboration with this list is near 0. Why?
because of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-federatedsocialweb/2011Jul/0011.html
; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-federatedsocialweb/2011Jul/0012.html
feedback. Not a word. The Working for FederatedSocialWeb community or
whatever - even if it strongly dislikes the concurrent editing - just
should not allow the total ignorance. Nevermind, we know - here is
just not much people to help us, and, actually not an organization
that leads to FSW for world, rather - another organization that
incubates the possibilities, am i wrong? It, to be honest, my personal
conclusion, nothing personal to people here. I'v seen a worse feedback
for FSW, actually.

Another personal conclusion is that - if with this W3C structure all
is ok - Brad Kipfer wouldn't leaded to create a separate Wiki, a
separate Planet blog.
Tese https://drumbeat.org/en-US/projects/the-new-social-web-project/ -
2387 people - including would have been looking at and helping FSW.
XCCC would have been a group under FSW.

My opinion - CG's could satisfy his and other people's need in making
the structure that actually would Federate Social Web, a structure
that won't be good or bad with some conferences in California or
Portland or where is this could be done better (nothing personal, i
love USA and this is just an example) but would be particularly good
in gathering all the New-Born Social initiatives from Whole the World
- to provide the mechanisms for Web Federation on earliest stages, to
evaluate and respect any need of any initiative, at least with
feedback.. to lead and help these initiatives. Lead and help for the
creation of FSW, nothing less.

My - backed by facts - opinion is that - if there are will and
resources for FSW XG to make FSW, it acting just too slow,
in result - no FSW at the moment and increasing mess among Social Nets Projects.

Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 14:48:33 UTC