- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:22:34 +0000
- To: cperey@perey.com
- Cc: public-xg-socialweb@w3.org
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com> wrote: > Hi Harry, > > Your Doodle asks if the group should ask the W3C for extension as an XG or > change to IG. Is there not a third scenario in which the report of the SWXG > gets finished (at least in draft) in the next 60 days? > We will still produce an interim report in 60 days of course. > > Ten months ago I found it difficult to envision how we would use an entire > year to complete the charter of the XG... > I am not surprised. About 2/3 of XGs ask for charter extensions. > > I fear that if the XG were to become directly an IG, it might not *ever* > fulfill its charter and a lot of effort would be lost. > Exactly. > > On the other hand, if we take more and more time before producing a report, > and with the world of social Web moving forward, not standing still, how do > we know that the information gathered last July is still accurate? relevant? > valid? > Explain what parts are no longer accurate/relevant? > > Don't you/we run the risk, with an extension, of the XG being totally > irrelevant (we may be anyway!)? > Well, we do have Jeff Panzer from Google on the next call over the Salmon Protocol, which I think will be great, it's important work the W3C should be aware of. > > I am unable to commit more of my time to the SWXG report/document (since I > am up against another deadline right now), we all know how deadlines can be > very valuable for increasing focus and productivity. > > No problem, you've done lots of work with the Framework doc already, and some combo of that with ID Commons Lexicon will be crucial. > What are the chances that by asking for an extension of the SWXG, the group > and its editor(s) are just pushing the inevitable "pain" out to spring 2010? > Well, most people (including myself) have a bit more time in summer than we do in the spring. I am fully confident a final report can be done that adequately addresses the landscape, but we have still not really engaged large portions of the landscape and crucial technologies - that's what worries me more than anything else. That just requires more time. > > -- > Christine > > Spime Wrangler > > cperey@perey.com > mobile +41 79 436 68 69 > VoIP (from US) +1 (617) 848-8159 > Skype (from anywhere) Christine_Perey > > > Harry Halpin 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]. >> >> >> [1]http://www.doodle.com/g6wgh3dsydquivnh >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups >> cheers, >> harry >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 16:23:03 UTC