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
[email protected], 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:[email protected]]
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; [email protected]; [email protected]
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
