- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:01:45 +0100
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: public-xg-socialweb@w3.org
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote: > To take a quick straw poll, here is the Doodle poll for IG vs. XG: > > http://www.doodle.com/g6wgh3dsydquivnh > > Basically, if we extend the XG, then we have more time to figure out > future standardization and write the final report. > > If we go the route of the IG, then we can use the list-serv and even > meet indefinitely, but we don't really have a purpose per se. > > My preference is to stick with the XG for the time being before > transitioning into an IG, as I think we have yet to overview the full > landscape and talk to enough people to give the W3C an accurate > overview and gameplan that respects and integrates well into the rest > of the Social Web eco-system. Plus, I only like participating in > activities that have definite goal. Once we are done with the final > report, I'm happy to turn into a IG-driven listserv though if that's > the best way forward, or maybe an IG plus some WGs (Working Groups). > For differences, see here [2]. Yes, I would also suggest sticking with the XG mode for a few more months (maybe ask for 6 but treat that as generous). An IG would be a natural outcome, but the kind of IG that does have a mission, even if modest. Note that the range of things done under the 'IG' banner at W3C ranges massively, and evolves over time. We shouldn't feel too tied by this. The main hard constraint on IG activities is that they don't produce Recommendation-track work. They could of course always generate proposals for WGs to do so... Dan > > [1]http://www.doodle.com/g6wgh3dsydquivnh > [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups > cheers, > harry > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 08:02:18 UTC