- From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
- Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 11:48:11 +0200
- To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
Available at:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/05/12-lld-minutes.html
Text version follows.
-----
LLD XG
12 May 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011May/0031.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-lld-irc
Attendees
Present
emma, antoine, monica, tbaker, ww, jeff_, edsu, kefo,
rsinger, GordonD, marcia, kai, dvila, jneubert, jodi, kcoyle
Regrets
Lars, Kim, Uldis, Peter, Michael, Ray
Chair
Emma
Scribe
William
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]ADMIN
* [6]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<emma> Previous: 2001-05-05
[7]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/05/05-lld-minut
es.html
[7] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/05/05-lld-minutes.html
<emma> Scribe: William
<tbaker> scribenick: ww
<dvila> thanks antoine
ADMIN
do we accept the minutes from previeous telecon?
ACCEPTED
schedule for upcoming teleconferences until end of august because we
are in process of requesting extension 3 months
emma: final report...
... idea of transitioning to community group
... conferences are every two weeks in july and august
... still waiting for approval from w3c for extension
... shouldn't be an issue
... just waiting for process to be completed...
... when it is will inform on mailing list
... questions?
<kcoyle> having trouble with boston phone number: all circuits busy
emma: suggest oto hand floor to harry to introduce concept of
community groups
... explain how we can transition, what would be the interest and so
on
harry: what's going on is that people can ... w3c is doing one of
the larger porocess changes in last 5 years or de cade
<harry>
[8]http://www.w3.org/QA/2011/04/coming_soon_w3c_community_grou.html
[8] http://www.w3.org/QA/2011/04/coming_soon_w3c_community_grou.html
harry: introduce more bottom up process called community groups or
business groups
... quick overview...
... official details are linked from ... blog post
... is aproved by w3c management and advisory board
<harry> [9]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/
[9] http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/
harry: to give broad overview
... community groups are way for any kind of people w3c members or
not, to use w3c resources to create draft standards
<kcoyle> karen
harry: based on feedback from incubator groups process
... IGs will be phased out
... all new groups will be WGs, business groups or community groups
... community groups will be made on show of support...
... run until they are finished,... no defined ending date
... working on standards and specs takes longer than you think
... most groups have had to ask for extensions
<jodi> hmm...an "end date" has been quite helpful in focusing our
work and justifying our scope
harry: and often not sure how long it will take for specs to get
adopted...
... general overarching process... interesting as well... keep work
experimental until point where it is adopted enough that it is
justified to adopt as standard
... launched sometime in june... a dozen community groups
... too early for your schedule...
... but then it is possible for any incubator group to transition
into community group after charter expired
... community of interest groups optimised for
individualparticipation
<harry> [10]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/final
[10] http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/final
harry: so what we've sort of done is taken open web license and
modified so it can work with w3c license
... so what you have is license that allows individuals to do
non-asserts
... and you have a clear path to non-royalty status
... make everyone in CG sign lightweight non-patent-assert and then
spin into WG
... incubator groups and community groups expected to more or less
run themselves
... business groups provide higher staff connection
... because more w3c resources, minor fee if no w3c member orgs
involved
... w3c member becomes team contact
... so example of business group,,, oil and gas industry... want to
make rdf vocab to model oil and gas...
... would like w3c staff help to do this...
... in crafting the vocabulary and helping put out information about
it
... that is the difference...
... community groups have no staff connectivity...
... business groups have more staff connectivity
... working groups have the most...
... any questions on community groups?
... expectation is when group is finished... would mail harry or dan
... coralie
... and we would set up infrastructure for it
... and ask that a new scoping statement drawn up by group
... scoping statement would be charter as CG
tbaker: i wanted to clarify...
... first of all maybe you could just define what a non-assert is
... but wanted to clarify....
... if i understand correctly... the purpose of this new way of
doing things is making it easy for individuals to participate...
... but when i look at the community final agreement it looks like
an individual is being asked to say they can sign on behalf of their
employer...
... so i wanted to clarify to what extent they are taken as
individuals or representing their employers
harry: so actually two questions. are they representing their
employers?
... and what is the legal bounds.?
... if employer is w3c member, obviously you should keep your
representative aware
... if you are not a member...
... if royalty free agreement... can as a company verify and agree
nto be bound not to assert patents rights... legally binding way...
agree not to ask for any sort of warranties by implementors of the
specs
... actually pretty strong...
... often means getting out the patent lawyers
... which can take years
... as an individual... certify that not any patents in the spec
tbaker: looking at doc, "i certify that i authorised on behalf of
organisation below..." "commitments of that organisation"
... is pretty strong
<edsu> tbaker++
harry: individuals may sign pretending to sign as individuals... but
could be problem in patent-heavy space... so agree on behalf of
employer
... this specification quite short compared to royalty free ...
... if you have more detailed questions, would have to refer to w3c
legal staff for point by point
... if you form ig, don't have to sign until decide to push spec
forward
tbaker: i see this as potential issue...
... i think ... sometimes people participate in WGs ... more than
their employers realise
... because they are committe to whatever it s...
... i have a slight concern that people will hesitate when they see
this...\
... sgo up the line, get management involved, starts getting more
coomplicated
harry: if someone contributing whose management would not improve,
to avoid patent problems...
<jodi> As digital library grows into CS territory, there certainly
is potential for patent issues, IMO.
<jodi> less than elsewhere, of course!
harry: would be best to participate ... not contribute text... even
if they did... no diffference between IG process if something you
think would go into a working draft, you'd have the same problem
... what this allows you to do is bulletproof yourself as early as
possible and give w3c higher assurances that things that come out of
WG can be a spec
... shouldn't be a showstopper but will forward to legall team and
ask for clarification
antoine: my question was about scope of different groups, CGs vs.
BGs... is there a formal criterion that would classify into one or
the other category...
... my feeling is that library or wider cultural heritage group is
not so focused in some field of technology... looks a bit like a
business litmus test?...
harry: ultimately the only difference is staff connectivity...
... so that's the litmus test about what is legally enforced as
regards to staff time
... reason why some groups wanted more staff time... outreach and
help with specs
... BGs aimed at business verticals...
... more of an internal question of how much connectivity you want
to staff
... more about fitting your neeeds than fitting a particular kind of
scoping
... exact same, real difference staff connectivity
... if you wanted to transition you could transition to either
antoine: is it possible to transition frmo one to the other... if we
start as CG and then think we need more W3C staff...
<emma> Comparison table of W3C groups :
[11]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/#comparison
[11] http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/#comparison
harry: we believe that probably will be the case, but haven't had
anybody do that yet... haven't launched them yet
... whole point of process is less constraints...
... but don't want to lose the energy
<GordonD> Gordon just joined
harry: there will be a community council so that the chairs of CGs
will have more regular meetings with W3C staff to check in on a
regular basis
... to clarify, the w3c does not want ... what we're going to do to
prevent that is to have regular meetings with chairs...
... regular meetings to make sure groups are akien care of
<Zakim> emma, you wanted to ask about non member institutions
harry: people complaining that the charter system is hard,
open-ended and experimental
emma: relatedly... question to confirm that CG seems to be suited to
working for a community where lot of institutions that are not W3C
members
<jodi> +1 to involvement without having to be W3C members or
register as invited experts!
emma: lot of smaller institutions aren't able to become members...
common in cultural heritage... CG very relevant for our community
<GordonD> +1
<edsu> jodi: concur
<dvila> +1
harry: practical level... more or less open to individual and
non-member orgs from the beginning
... make more suited to your community
<antoine> +1
harry: with BG don't ask that every member pays a fee, just that
enough tho pay for staff time, then everyone else in for free
emma: i see our participants are very happy about it
edsu: hi... i was ... i guess... just as a context for ... following
on from tom's question
<antoine> but even the business group "funding" scheme could work
for us as well
edsu: it would be very difficult for me to sign anything as an LOC
employee with out getting the legal department involved
<emma> +1, edsu !
edsu: not patent lawyers... but still a barrier... i could get
through it but it would take some time... so to say it is not a
barrier.. i think lot of people in similar situation
... you mentioned 12 to start in june, curious who they are, some
examples?
... also... that and BGs get extra staffing, can you provide
examples of what services staff would provide
harry: in order, not saying not a barrier, saying it is less than
signing full royalty-free agreement
... large companies like yahoo won't sign such a thing
... these are lighter weight... have assurances they may sign...
... for people like you, i would assume you could probably get by
without signing, just have to be careful... responsibility of group
to make sure patents don't slip in for future spec
... if you become WG you have to put something you want to put as a
spec... by the time you make that suggestion you need to have all
contribuors to spec to have signed agreement
... so not barrier to joining the group...
... don't want situation where CG makes a spec and no patent license
involved and spec sneaks through
... if you have concerns W3cC legal to help clarify
edsu: concerned it would be a barrier... legal people need to talk
to legal people, that's a barrier
harry: same point... depends on what group is doing...
... overvi
4792 295 4792 14137 0 0 10124 0 --:--:-- 0:00:01 --:--:-- 20577ew report? wouldn't require patent non-asserts
... if vocabulary? if you feel vocab can be used by libraries need
to make sure no patents
<jodi> +1 to clarity
edsu: needs to be clear what someone has to do to be involved in
community
... needs to be clearer than it is now
harry: if produces spec... will have to sign... to become WD
edsu: when they want to push it forward that's when they woul have
to sign...
harry: give patent lawyers years to go through patents...
... strong commitment helps companies like ibm relax a bit...
... to go back to other point...
... launching open digital rights, micropayments, html5... federated
social web... usdl
... wide variety
<tbaker> Harry: When a spec produced by the Community becomes a
candidate for getting W3C status -- that is the point at which
non-asserts need to be assigned. (My interpretation.)
harry: was your final point?
edsu: staffing, what services w3c would provide to BGs?
harry: staffing ... would essentially deal with ability of groups to
do large amounts of outreach
... e.g. w3c maintains giant database of industry... if you want
everybody to use your spec... want to make sure all the players are
at the table...
... requires busdev...
... another example is liason... would like work to be part of
gameplan for rdf stack or html5 stack or etc... requires a lot of
work for w3c staff to integrate your group
... final is industry verticals... lots of healthcare lifesciences
wanting to e.g. produce owl version of snomed, not owl experts and
want to make sure it stays consistent woth owl... requires staff to
do homework and make sure it fits... lot of time commitment
... a bit different for each group... maybe at some point this might
come up...
<jodi> avoiding getting "silo'd" by being a non-profit interest vs.
business interest is important going forward
edsu: difference between a BG and a WG
<jodi> to avoid the sorts of divergence the library has had from IT
best practices in the past decades
harry: WG has devoted staff time. s.t. if you are a W3C employee
some percentage of your time is devoted to shepherding that work
through the W3cC process
... with BG smaller amount of time
... with BG very much more ad-hoc... we want to push vocab out, then
get staff to help
<emma> @jodi I don't think it's the case here, the difference is not
about being non-profit, but about the amount of work the group is
asking from W3C
<edsu> sorry to monopolize time :(
harry: with some BG may require every telecon... but that might mean
rejigging of the fee...
<jodi> emma: I understand. My worry is that less staff attention NOT
be less attention from people following the IT state of the art
<jodi> edsu: thanks for asking good questions for all of us! not
monopolizing IMO! :)
harry: need to sit down with management and figure out what staff
time is involved. less than a WG more than 0.
... some CG say, really could have used some help... now if they do
help, they are doing it as an individual basis not as their job...
<emma> @jodi do you think that's the case re: the XG ?
<tbaker> @edsu, you are tasking good questions
harry: we want if certain key points come up for group, BG wants
staff to devote some time to it...
emma: any other questions
<jodi> congrats harry! :)
harry: the key is you guys will be the first group to transition
after initial transition period
... might be few bumps because nobody's done it before
harry: email us, with some notice... and we'll work it out... that
would be good... and we do want to see final report done
<antoine> thanks, harry!
<tbaker> Harry: Ideally inform of intent to transition at least one
month before (extended) end of charter.
harry: that would be great
<edsu> harry++ # thanks!
<tbaker> thank you, harry!
<dvila> thank you harry!
emma: thank you, we will continue to discuss and send questions
harry: .we'll be in bilbao may take a bit of time...
everyone: thank you
emma: few minutes more... think it's interesting to transition to CG
... invited harry because seems to be straightforward process to
transition from IG to CG
... IGs won't exist any more
... just extend charter... gives us some some time to think about it
... you guys what do you think, is it relevant
kcoyle: this is complicated. i feel that we are today as an IG is
...
... individuals and i don't know to what extent people feel they are
representing their organistation
... if we become a CG we have to have a closer connection to library
community
<jodi> kcoyle: do you mean that the W3C isn't close enough to the
library world?
kcoyle: how does the w3c library community group interact with
library community?
emma: probably added value of new group would be to create a
community taht would go beyond libraries and include archives and
museums...
<dvila> +1 to add archives and museums
<GordonD> +1 for a, l, m community group
emma: maybe there are other organisations that can make that
bridge...
... w3c has web focus, linked data but web in general that's why
interesting to have CG within W3C
kcoyle: been an interesting group
... concern is library community already has foci...
... places where its community interacts
... so how does this interact with those?
... how do we integrate these activities with ongoing ones
emma: key question for community
edsu: i think that's a good question to ask
... came to mind was this report that harry is interested in seeing
... when it gets published ... for this IG to communicate
outwards... to other foci...
... communities of people that go to these things... maybe it pops
up on their radar...
... people in this IG are active in other communities...
... area where we could bridge different communities and do a bit
more cross-pollination
... emma was saying libraries and museums and archives could share a
bit more with a web focus
... it could work
... i'm glad tom brought up what he did
... depending how they spin the legal side of it it could be
difficult
... not just for me but for anybody i imagine that has to sign
something that says they're speaking for their institution
emma: actually you as LOC are more representing your institution
than an invited expert
edsu: i guess you're right... but idea of these CGs are to lower the
bar for non-member
... kcoyle would it be harder for you?
kcoyle: not for me but i could see that it would be for members of
larger institutions that aren't members already
edsu: nice thing about w3c members is that it's already done... but
people who aren't members... going to have to ... go through the
legal process...
... to just participate...
<edsu> +1 to that
kcoyle: another comment i have is if we move to a CG where we might
actually be a development.. .then we have to get more library
vendors involved
<dvila> good point
<jodi> +1 for involving library vendors
edsu: easier for them... wouldn't have to commit to being memebers
<edsu> scribenick: edsu
ww: it seems like signing these things towards the end of a
lifecycle of a bit of work, isn't that a bit dangerous...if a a
business tries to sneak some stuff into some work and then decides
not to sign
kcoyle: it does happen
<ww> kcoyle: something having to do with ebooks...
<scribe> scribenick: ww
<antoine> maybe worth forwarding that point to W3C!
<edsu> antoine: agreed
emma: anyone wanting to make another comment? if not... suggestion
would be those of you who are attending the LODLAM summit in june
maybe you can discuss this with opeople at summit an at other
institutions...
... probably we need other people joining if we want to be a CG
antoine: just a quick not... karen and william's point
interesting... maybe send an email... would not expect this
7627 295 7627 22502 0 0 14922 0 --:--:-- 0:00:01 --:--:-- 28197
to
happen but maybe it could be interesting
emma: other business?
tbaker: suggest that on next call we want to assign reviewers for
various sections
... antuo emma you agree with that? if you do that it would be good
if groups working on particular sections could get them into a shape
where they could go out for review...
... not final shape, im sure we'll have additional discussion,
that's why we are extending the charter... but in shape where we
could assign reviewers next week
<kai> sorry, have to leave timely. bye :-)
<scribe> ACTION: section owners try to be ready for reviewers next
week [recorded in
[12]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/05/12-lld-minu
tes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: chairs to send an email on the list to ask people
to be ready [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/05/12-lld-minu
tes.html#action02]
antoine: if something is ready before, circulate on list
... kim asks that when we are ready we send him an email
emma: thank you everyone
<antoine> s/send an a email/chairs to send an email
<dvila> thank you everyone
<jodi> tbaker: yup
<GordonD> Tom: we do
AJDOURNED
<jneubert> bye
<jodi> tbaker: be back in 2 min
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: section owners try to be ready for reviewers next week
[recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/05/12-lld-minu
tes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: chairs to send an email on the list to ask people to
be ready [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/05/12-lld-minu
tes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [16]scribe.perl version 1.136
([17]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/05/14 15:39:18 $
[16] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Sunday, 15 May 2011 09:48:37 UTC