W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2009

RE: Survey of list on the Unified Social XG Charter (Feedback

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:09:22 -0500 (EST)
To: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
Cc: "'Renato Iannella'" <renato@nicta.com.au>, "'Tim Anglade'" <tim.anglade@af83.com>, "'Krishna Sankar (ksankar)'" <ksankar@cisco.com>, "'Fabien Gandon'" <Fabien.Gandon@sophia.inria.fr>, "'Karl Dubost'" <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, "'Mauro Nunez'" <mauro@w3.org>, "'Ann Bassetti'" <ann.bassetti@boeing.com>, "'Dominique Hazael-Massieux'" <dom@w3.org>, "'Miquel Martin'" <miquel.martin@nw.neclab.eu>, www-archive@w3.org, danbri@danbri.org, "'Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group'" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0902270452320.19830@tribal>
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Christine Perey wrote:

> I was unable to focus on this the past 2 days (and will not be able to
> provide much attention/feedback today), but I hope that the detailed
> comments made on Monday on this topic were sufficient/appropriate.
>
> I have had 2 minutes to glance at the updated survey as of 9 AM CET. Renato
> brings up very valid recommendations.
>
> In addition:
>
> the questions about if a respondent is a W3C member (Q11 and Q12) should be
> folded into the top section entitled "information about you" then make it
> clear that the survey is open to all, regardless of if you are a member or
> not.

This is clear from the question and survey is open to all.

> Q13 should be dropped. We know that there are at least 4 members willing to
> sponsor the XG and this is an administrative question.

No, all initiating members should be listed in the charter. This gives the 
W3C an idea of how many of their members want the XG, a reasonable thing 
to know.

> I find that Question #14 is a red herring. It is not needed. It confuses the
> issue by asking everyone to go backwards. We have dedicated considerable
> effort to make the Unified Social XG Charter reflect all the inputs/outputs
> of the workshop participants. The focus of attention should be only ONE
> charter: the Unified Social XG charter.

No, it is not a red-herring. It is a proposal. Simply put, some people [1] 
believe that the current proposed "unified" charter [2] is a step 
backwards and the previous charter is a step in the right direction [3].
If you  believe  that proposals sent to the list-serv for discussion on 
the telecon are  red-herrings, then you should post this to the 
public list-serv with some sort of argumentation about how this 
represents consensus amongst the group. In particular, while I appreciate 
the valuable work Tim Anglade did in editing the unified charter, there 
has been little to no activity on it.

Interestingly enough, almost everyone who has had background in W3C 
managing groups (Karl Dubost, Renato Ianella, and myself) has noticed the 
fact that the Unifed Social XG Charter has too many deliverables [2], while 
it's primary supporters (Tim Anglade and yourself) seem unfamiliar with 
W3C process and seem new to standardization efforts, which I can 
understand are difficult and considerably different from other types of 
work.

I  still  have not heard any argument about why so many deliverables 
are needed or  what  project plans/resources exist to complete them and 
maintain  them. These *are* the sort of questions any reasonable company, 
or the W3C Team, would ask. I  would  suggest that in general it is a safe and 
wise choice to use W3C  Process as it stands and look at successful 
charters in the past and take the advice of experience, without adding 
10+ deliverables and the creation of task-forces. Any reasonable W3C Team 
member would likely not approve the charter if it was shipped in its 
current "Unified" state [2]. I am happy to send the two proposals to the 
Incubator Activity for their judgement [4].

> Concur with Renato that Q15 is out of order. It needs to  be moved up to the
> first section, either as (becoming) question #1 or between current questions
> #2 and #3.

Questions have been considerably re-ordered.

> By way of this message I am adding Dan Applequist to this thread.

I would prefer for this discussion to happen over 
public-social-web-talk@w3.org, as I have re-iterated again and again. 
Scoping is important and deserves to be discussed and known by many 
people on the list, many of whom have considerable experience in open 
standardization and the Web.

Also, please "learn-to-quote" [5]. Your e-mail program seems to be set to 
automatic top-posting, making discussion difficult. Generally, quoting 
can be a good thing.

[1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-social-web-talk/2009Feb/0075.html
[2]http://esw.w3.org/topic/UnifiedSocialXG
[3]http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebXGCharter
[4]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-xg-activity/
[5]http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

> Regards,
>
> Christine
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Renato Iannella [mailto:renato@nicta.com.au]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 6:11 AM
> To: Harry Halpin
> Cc: Tim Anglade; Krishna Sankar (ksankar); Fabien Gandon; Karl Dubost; Mauro
> Nunez; Ann Bassetti; Dominique Hazael-Massieux; Miquel Martin; Christine
> Perey; www-archive@w3.org; danbri@danbri.org
> Subject: Re: Survey of list on the Unified Social XG Charter (Feedback
>
>
> On 27 Feb 2009, at 14:33, Harry Halpin wrote:
>
>> Please do send comments ASAP, I have been waiting 24 hours for
>> comments before sending out in the interest of being polite. However,
>> given the telecon time is approaching, I do not want to wait anymore.
>
>
> Q1 - please split into two questions as there is a mixture of points trying
> to be addressed here. This questions should ask, "if there was multiple task
> forces, which group would you primarily be interested in"
> (and remove the second bullet point). Then Q15 should be moved as the next
> question (or even the first question).
>
> Q3 - the Yes/No answer does not match the question. Answers should be
> "single teleconf" and "multiple teleconfs" and "single list" and "multiple
> lists" - and they need to be check boxes.
> (also remove the last sentence as that is an opinion)
>
> Q14 - the Yes/No answer does not match the question. Answers should be "Edit
> the original smaller charter" and "Edit the new larger charter"
>
>
>
> Cheers...  Renato Iannella
> NICTA
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
 				--harry

 	Harry Halpin
 	Informatics, University of Edinburgh
         http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 10:09:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:35 UTC