w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire TPAC 2012 Breakout Followup
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: w3t-archive@w3.org
This questionnaire was open from 2012-11-13 to 2012-12-03.
24 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Your session
- One-paragraph summary
- Was the breakout useful?
- Does your session require followup?
- If you think that discussion needs to continue...
- If you do not think that discussion needs to continue...
- Improvements?
1. Your session
Please provide the title of your session
Details
| Responder | Title |
|---|---|
| Elika Etemad | Restyling W3C Specs |
| Chaals Nevile | How to be a better chair |
| Henry Story | WebID, ReadWriteWeb & Social Web Community Groups meeting |
| Alan Stearns | Test the Web Forward |
| Ashok Malhotra | Offline Applications |
| James Graham | Test infrastructure + github |
| Ian Jacobs | Community Groups, Modern Guide |
| Jean-Charles Verdie | tv api (later renamed device capabilities) |
| Claes Nilsson | Web Intents and Web Intents for local services |
| Marcos Caceres | Adding Responsive Images to the Web |
| Alexandre Morgaut | End-to-end W3C APIs |
| Anne van Kesteren | URL |
| Steven Pemberton | XML Memory |
| Ivan Herman | Digital Publishing |
| Ann Bassetti | Social web #1 (11:00) | Social web #2 (14:30) |
| Dong-Young Lee | Stereoscopic 3D Web |
| Kiyoshi Tanaka | Extended DRM requirements for content distribution |
| Felix Sasaki | Making the Multilingual Web Work |
| Dave Raggett | APIs for trusted web applications |
| Bryan Sullivan | Smarter WebApps for Smarter Phones |
| Johannes Behr | Declarative 3D as Polyfill |
| Francois Daoust | Linked Data for Web Developers |
| Deborah Dahl | Speech and HTML |
| Brad Hill | Is preventing browser fingerprinting a lost cause? |
2. One-paragraph summary
Please, provide a short summary of your breakout that we will include in the TPAC 2012 Breakout Report.
Your summary may include the goal and accomplishments (or lack thereof) of your breakout, as well as next steps.
Details
| Responder | Summary |
|---|---|
| Elika Etemad | Discussed progress and next steps for restyling the W3C /TR drafts. |
| Chaals Nevile | An exploration of what chairs can do to do a better job (and what a better job means). It was meant to be more discussion but was a bit more guided than I hoped. Minutes were posted to chairs@ with a followup. But not much seems to have come of that. |
| Henry Story | This meeting was very positive. It re-invigorated the communities, allowed us to clarify the next steps, bring new people into the fold, helped us understand w3c process, get to meet each other, and helped us understand what new issues still needed to be addressed... |
| Alan Stearns | We presented the results of the Test the Web Forward events of 2012, and proposed more events for 2013. In addition to the large events (perhaps quarterly?) we'd like to encourage smaller, more frequent meetups. The rest of the session was a discussion on how to improve these events. |
| Ashok Malhotra | We need an architecture for offline apps to complete the Web landscape. As access becomes increasingly mobile, this becomes even more important. There are several issues involved. Two of them are: how to provide client-side storage and how to facilitate synchronization between client-side and server storage. For more details and a summary see: http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2012/Offline_Apps |
| James Graham | Discussion of the shortcomings of the current W3C test infrastructure, and possible improvements, with particular focus on the possibility of using github as the primary UI for hosting of test materials. The idea of using github specifically had notable support, but some valid concerns were raised about not depending on infrastructure that may not exist in the long term. A course of action that retains the advantages but avoids the pitfalls started to take shape. |
| Ian Jacobs | <p>In the CG session we talked about making a clearer distinction between CG products and WG products, about the value of good practices documentation, chair selection algorithm, and transition of work from CG to WG. Next steps will be in the Community Council. See the <a href="http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2012/Community_Groups">full summary</a>. </p> <p>In the modern guide session we interviewed Michael_Cooper, Daniel_Glazman, and Chaals. See the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2012/10/31-guide-minutes.html">notes</a>.</p> |
| Jean-Charles Verdie | This breakout was intended to kick-off the TV APIs Task Force of the Web & TV IG, to discuss what are the questions we need to solve and the approach we are willing to follow |
| Claes Nilsson | Presentations and demos on how Web Intents can be used by web applications to discover and use not only cloud based services but also services on UPnP or mDNS enabled devices in local networks. The feedback was positive but the Web Intents concept is currently being reworked so the next step is to modify addendum specification defining Web Intents for local services according to the modified Web Intents API when this is mature enough. |
| Marcos Caceres | The Responsive Images session discussed the approaches the RICG WG and the HTMLWG group are taking to solve this problem. The RICG presented their use cases and then discussed a possible solution. Browser vendors then discussed an alternative solution. We concluded we need to talk more to find something that meets everyone's needs. |
| Alexandre Morgaut | HTML5 and offline support contributed in the creation of a bunch of APIs which only made sense on server-side in first place: File/FileSystem, Workers, Sockets, Storage/Session, Blob, ImageData. Most of those APIs, and even the already existing XMLHttpRequest have been designed from the beginning to be usable via either synchronous or asynchronous APIs from the very early stages (synchronous is not blocking any more the user interface in browsers when used in workers). Now that the Server-Side JavaScript is rising again either in synchronous and asynchronous implementations, it is time, if we really want interoperable code/libraries/modules, to try to make those APIs also implementable in the server-side context, and then on the other end, to propose Server-Side JavaScript implementations to support them. CommonJS started a great project, it is now time to make its ambitions real. -> http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2012/SessionIdeas#End-to-end_W3C_APIs |
| Anne van Kesteren | The breakout focused on introducing http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ and figuring out what the high-level concerns were of the people in the room. More in depth discussion might be required when the specification is 80% done. |
| Steven Pemberton | Developing a proto-spec for marking up changes to documents. |
| Ivan Herman | Plans of W3C on Digital Publishing were presented, including a small technical overview of the ePub3 IDPF Standard. That was followed by feedbacks, further issues and questions. |
| Ann Bassetti | For "Social Web #1 (11:00)": Goal was to explore interest in "social web", and W3C's role. Wendy Seltzer chaired; neither of us prepared much ahead of time. Large room, full of people. Only had time to go around the room to hear peoples' interest & challenges -- which are documented in Wendy's notes on wiki. (Wendy should also comment with her views.) For "Social web #2 (14:30)": I added this 2nd 'social' session ad hoc after the 11:00 session was such a big success. In this session I hoped to brainstorm the pros and cons, or possible focus, of W3C holding a workshop on 'social web'. Unfortunately this one was poorly attended, with only me and 2 others. Regardless, we had a good conversation, which broadened my understanding of how some other industries (telco and TV) want to integrate social tools into their offerings. |
| Dong-Young Lee | The idea of extending web standards to utilize stereoscopic 3D displays was introduced and discussed. Supporting stereo images and videos, and extending CSS 3D Transforms are first things to do. Existing work from other industries (broadcasting, gaming) could be leveraged. A task force to discuss this topic will be formed in the Web and TV IG. |
| Kiyoshi Tanaka | In this session, four use-cases are presented by the proposers. There were clarifications from the scope of EME (Encrypted Media Extensions) that is discussed in HTML WG. A Web and TV IG co-chair who attended on this session declared that the Web and TV IG will discuss such use-cases and requirements which might not be covered on EME. |
| Felix Sasaki | Mainly ITS 2.0 metadata was discussed. We were low in attendance, having mostly people from the i18n core working group. The discussion was useful in terms of coordinating ITS 2.0 with i18n needs for HTML5. |
| Dave Raggett | This meeting was held for people interested in the newly formed System Applications and Near Field Communications working groups. There is considerable emerging interest in enabling the use of web technologies for writing system applications, such as a contact manager/address book, and examples of such systems include Apache Cordova (PhoneGap), ChromeOS, FirefoxOS, Tizen and webinos. We started with some introductions by Wonsuk Lee and Dave Raggett, and moved onto open discussions. The second hour focused on the security and execution model with an introduction by Jonas Sicking to the approach used in Firefox OS. |
| Bryan Sullivan | One of the key discussion points was whether ability of apps to know the current connection state (and type), and what developers could do with that info e.g. enabling the app to make network usage decisions at its level. The discussion ranged over: * the need for network contextual awareness by apps, or network usage preferences expression at least * the role of the user, device, service provider, and app developers in establishing data usage preferences and policies * privacy implications and how to address them The Network-Friendly App and WebApp Best Practices Community Group will capture the rest of the ideas in the two presentations, and provides a forum for further followup. Privacy discussions related to network context awareness are expected to continue in the Device API WG, and will also be summarized on the CG wiki. See http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2012/smarterwebapps for a more detailed summary of the session. |
| Johannes Behr | The main goal was to present the overall strategy shift in the Declarative 3D community group to provide even more use cases and applications on the existing “polyfill” layers (e.g. X3DOM and XML3D), instead of focusing on an overall declarative 3D specification upfront. The main goal therefore is to harmonize and extent this so-called polyfill layer to provide all the features and technologies needed for an extended set of targeted use cases. This includes CSS-based material systems as well as a deep integration into the DOM event and monitoring mechanism. The proposed system architecture was well received and people encouraged the presenters and declarative 3D community group to work on hard requirements for the related W3C specification and UA vendors |
| Francois Daoust | The breakout session reviewed the status of on-going standardization efforts in the Linked Data world from a developer perspective, in particular on-going works on JSON for Linking Data (JSON-LD) and on a Linked Data Platform. The session attracted about 25 people who discussed different methods for developers to harness Linked Data, either using libraries that directly expose the RDF Data model such as RDFlib or higher level objects such as those exposed by the JSON-LD API. Relevant discussions continue in the RDF Working Group and the Linked Data Platform Working Group. |
| Deborah Dahl | During 2011 a W3C Incubator Group on HTML+Speech worked on requirements and use cases and proposed markup and a JavaScript API to enable speech recognition and text to speech to be used in HTML pages. After this XG ended, a Community Group was started to continue work on this topic, and the CG has produced a draft proposal for a Javascript speech API. This session discussed next steps in moving this work forward to the standards track. The group generally agreed that a new Working Group focused on this goal and using the XG final report and the CG proposal as input would be a good next step. |
| Brad Hill | We discussed the difficulties in preventing browser fingerprinting and the necessity of a meaningful model for how requested changes to specs for passive privacy can actually improve the situation. Slides and minutes are at: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Fingerprinting |
3. Was the breakout useful?
Did you find your breakout session useful? Please feel free to comment on techniques you used to make the session useful, observations that would have helped make it more useful, etc.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| yes | 24 |
| no |
Details
| Responder | Was the breakout useful? | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Elika Etemad | yes | Would have been more useful if wasn't sidetracked by someone who kept wanting to discuss off-topic things. |
| Chaals Nevile | yes | Better preparation would always have been even better. But then, the goal was sort of hijacked and turned into more of a lecture than I had hoped. But I think it was useful (at least one chair came back afterwards after having applied things we discussed, saying that it really did make a difference) |
| Henry Story | yes | We spent a lot of time initially getting everybody onto IRC, then got everybody in the room a WebID which they could share via IRC, and which we could then publish at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/tpac/group and which allowed us then to demonstrate Access Control. This allowed developers to see for themselves what types of problems new people had, and for people who had never understood WebID to get a hands on feeling for it. |
| Alan Stearns | yes | |
| Ashok Malhotra | yes | Very useful. We got almost 50 people and had an animated discussion. I hope we can start some work based on the discussions. |
| James Graham | yes | Yes, it was very useful. The goal was to generate a discussion and ensure that all points of view were considered, so there was only a short introduction, no slides, and a few examples of the current setup projected. Use was also made of Zakim to organise the discussion. |
| Ian Jacobs | yes | The CG breakout was useful to help prioritize some policy and communication issues. The Modern Guide session was small but the intimacy allowed us to interview people. |
| Jean-Charles Verdie | yes | Albeit some breakouts such as this one would have deserved to be in a pre-programmed part of the TPAC so that we could invite people from others WG. The no-conf style is great but we should think of also creating something more organized in parallel. Like 2 different breakout parts |
| Claes Nilsson | yes | |
| Marcos Caceres | yes | |
| Alexandre Morgaut | yes | Before TPAC 1) I created a community group dedicated to the related topic 2) Once proposed by the TPAC organizers, I proposed this topic in the dedicated "Session Ideas" wiki page 3) I then prepared slides in hope I would have the occasion to show them at TPAC During TPAC 4) During private discussions or in some working group sessions, when I was given the occasion to present what I do, I mentioned the community group I created with the fact we were implementing W3C APIs on the server 5) At the beginning of the session, I made slides available via a URL published either on the wiki page and the IRC channel so anyone can parse them at their own rythm, including the remote IRC participants 6) I tried to make the presentation of the current situation as clear and short as possible to get as much feed-back as possible during and after it I was very happy to see people interest in this session, including Tim Berners Lee who made us the honor to come, and I'm confident it will help us in our projects to enhance interoperability. As I was new to W3C I was not yet well aware of the existing processes & tools like the IRC robots. It finally went well as I didn't put my session in the first time slot and as I found a "scribe" to help me I still didn't get how to make corrections to the generated HTML report which still is in a draft status. |
| Anne van Kesteren | yes | |
| Steven Pemberton | yes | A Community group was formed during the breakout. http://www.w3.org/community/change/ |
| Ivan Herman | yes | On the one hand, many people got information about an area at W3C that is not yet widely known (the room was packed full), and also some interesting concerns were raised (eg, on archiving) that should be taken into account for the future. |
| Ann Bassetti | yes | For "Social Web #1 (11:00)": Mostly to see the level of interest and hear the angles from which attendees were interested. For "Social web #2 (14:30)": As I said above, our conversation was useful to me, at least, broadening my awareness. One additional point that came out is that other standards orgs might be interested to work with W3C on social topics. In particular OMA and OIPF (Open IPTV Forum)were mentioned. Notes: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Additional_thoughts_on_social_at_W3C Not sure if Claudio or Youngsun got as much out of this discussion as I did, since they were already aware of their own industry directions. |
| Dong-Young Lee | yes | |
| Kiyoshi Tanaka | yes | It was nice opportunity to discuss with the key person who is one of the experts in the topic of our breakout session. |
| Felix Sasaki | yes | |
| Dave Raggett | yes | This was a valuable opportunity to introduce the aims of new W3C work on APIs for trusted applications and intended to enable web technologies to compete on a level playing field with native applications. |
| Bryan Sullivan | yes | |
| Johannes Behr | yes | http://www.w3.org/community/declarative3d/2012/11/27/declarative-3d-breakout-session-at-tpac/ |
| Francois Daoust | yes | |
| Deborah Dahl | yes | |
| Brad Hill | yes | I think it was useful in establishing common ground and expectations between privacy and security types about what is possible and how to think about structuring goals and requests for changes. |
4. Does your session require followup?
You organized a discussion at TPAC. Do you think that discussion should continue in some forum?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| yes | 23 |
| no | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Does your session require followup? |
|---|---|
| Elika Etemad | yes |
| Chaals Nevile | yes |
| Henry Story | yes |
| Alan Stearns | yes |
| Ashok Malhotra | yes |
| James Graham | yes |
| Ian Jacobs | yes |
| Jean-Charles Verdie | yes |
| Claes Nilsson | yes |
| Marcos Caceres | yes |
| Alexandre Morgaut | yes |
| Anne van Kesteren | yes |
| Steven Pemberton | yes |
| Ivan Herman | yes |
| Ann Bassetti | yes |
| Dong-Young Lee | yes |
| Kiyoshi Tanaka | yes |
| Felix Sasaki | yes |
| Dave Raggett | yes |
| Bryan Sullivan | yes |
| Johannes Behr | yes |
| Francois Daoust | no |
| Deborah Dahl | yes |
| Brad Hill | yes |
5. If you think that discussion needs to continue...
summary | by responder | by choice
Please indicate which venue or venues are the most appropriate for continuing the conversation. You can use the comment space to provide additional information or other options.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Conversation will continue in one or more W3C Groups (please indicate which one(s) below). | 19 |
| Conversation should continue in a W3C group that doesn't yet exist (e.g., a community group) | 4 |
| W3C staff should help identify forum for next steps | 1 |
| Conversation is happening or should happen outside W3C | 3 |
| Other (please indicate in the space below) | 2 |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | If you think that discussion needs to continue... | Other reason(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Elika Etemad |
|
spec-prod@w3.org |
| Chaals Nevile |
|
chairs@w3.org (hopefully all chairs - incluing task force facilitators and the like - are actually on the list). |
| Henry Story |
|
Some part of our work is mature enough to go to a full standards track. It would be nice to have help on the steps to get there. |
| Alan Stearns |
|
We plan on creating a W3C community group to replace our current email list. |
| Ashok Malhotra |
|
The discussion should/will continue in the WebApps WG |
| James Graham |
|
Testing IG + specific WGs that have testing efforts. |
| Ian Jacobs |
|
CG discussion in the Community Council. Modern Guide in the Modern Guide task force. |
| Jean-Charles Verdie |
|
in an IG actually, not a WG. |
| Claes Nilsson |
|
W3C Web Intents task force and Device API WG. |
| Marcos Caceres |
|
|
| Alexandre Morgaut |
|
The conversation will continue in the "Client and Server JavaScript APIs" community group I hope it will be taken in consideration into existing W3C Groups like "Web Application", "Device API", "Web Cryptography", "System Application API" It should also happen on the SSJS implementors mailing lists |
| Anne van Kesteren |
|
It is happening outside the W3C. I don't really care where it happens personally although obviously I want the specification to be freely licensed. |
| Steven Pemberton |
|
http://www.w3.org/community/change/ |
| Ivan Herman |
|
There are several workshops in preparations that will determine whether further W3C activities will follow and through which formats. |
| Ann Bassetti |
|
For "Social Web #1 (11:00)": All of the above. There's a lot of discussion in the Social Business Community Group about what to do next, as well as with some W3C Team, and of course tons of interest in the public (independent of W3C). For "Social web #2 (14:30)": Yes this conversation should continue. It's part of the same conversations and set of ideas discussed in the "social web" session #1. |
| Dong-Young Lee |
|
3dweb TF in the Web and TV IG |
| Kiyoshi Tanaka |
|
Web and TV IG (Because the one of co-chair declared.) |
| Felix Sasaki |
|
MLW-LT i18n core |
| Dave Raggett |
|
System Applications and Near Field Communications Working Groups |
| Bryan Sullivan |
|
The Network-Friendly App and WebApp Best Practices Community Group will capture the rest of the ideas in the two presentations, and provides a forum for further followup. Privacy discussions related to network context awareness are expected to continue in the Device API WG, and will also be summarized on the CG wiki. |
| Johannes Behr |
|
Declarative 3D community group |
| Francois Daoust | ||
| Deborah Dahl |
|
|
| Brad Hill |
|
Conversation will continue in the W3C Privacy IG |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| Conversation will continue in one or more W3C Groups (please indicate which one(s) below). |
|
| Conversation should continue in a W3C group that doesn't yet exist (e.g., a community group) |
|
| W3C staff should help identify forum for next steps |
|
| Conversation is happening or should happen outside W3C |
|
| Other (please indicate in the space below) |
|
6. If you do not think that discussion needs to continue...
summary | by responder | by choice
Please indicate why.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| The purpose of the session was just to share information and we accomplished that. | 4 |
| The purpose of the session was to introduce a new topic, but no further discussion is necessary at this time. | 1 |
| We finished the discussion during TPAC. | |
| Other (please explain in the space below). | 1 |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | If you do not think that discussion needs to continue... | Other reason(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Elika Etemad | ||
| Chaals Nevile | ||
| Henry Story | ||
| Alan Stearns | ||
| Ashok Malhotra | ||
| James Graham | ||
| Ian Jacobs | ||
| Jean-Charles Verdie | ||
| Claes Nilsson |
|
|
| Marcos Caceres |
|
|
| Alexandre Morgaut | ||
| Anne van Kesteren | ||
| Steven Pemberton | ||
| Ivan Herman | ||
| Ann Bassetti | ||
| Dong-Young Lee | ||
| Kiyoshi Tanaka |
|
|
| Felix Sasaki | ||
| Dave Raggett | ||
| Bryan Sullivan | ||
| Johannes Behr | ||
| Francois Daoust |
|
It's a mix of the possible choices: the goal was to review on-going standardization efforts within W3C to address things in a developer-friendly way. The discussion continues in the respective working groups that address these efforts (RDF and Linked Data Platform WG) |
| Deborah Dahl | ||
| Brad Hill |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| The purpose of the session was just to share information and we accomplished that. |
|
| The purpose of the session was to introduce a new topic, but no further discussion is necessary at this time. |
|
| We finished the discussion during TPAC. | |
| Other (please explain in the space below). |
|
7. Improvements?
Do you have suggestions for improving the organization of the breakout sessions? For example, by making them longer, or having a clear statement of goals up front, or more preparation, or more/less reporting, etc.
Details
| Responder | Improvements? |
|---|---|
| Elika Etemad | Altogether worked well from my perspective. :) |
| Chaals Nevile | Bigger pieces of paper for writing them on. More space around the board at scrum time. People should be much clearer what sessions are about. |
| Henry Story | |
| Alan Stearns | We probably could have had less reporting in favor of more discussion, but the discussion topics appeared to end at the end of the session. |
| Ashok Malhotra | I should have thought about organizing the session ahead of time and have come prepared with an agenda and talking points :-) |
| James Graham | Some sessions could clearly benefit from being shorter and others from being longer. So the existing time is a good compromise, but more flexibility would be welcome. Of course it is not always clear upfront which topics are interesting enough to merit more discussion. Sessions that are purely presentational should be discouraged; maybe have a stated limit of N minutes of up-front presentation. Reporting at the end still doesn't seem that useful. |
| Ian Jacobs | |
| Jean-Charles Verdie | |
| Claes Nilsson | |
| Marcos Caceres | It was all good :) |
| Alexandre Morgaut | Maybe the occasion to have each of the sessions presented in 30 s. in the keynote: - before the breakout sessions, to help people making their choice - or after, to have an overview of the work which has been done during the day The difficulty being of course that 30 s is short, and even like that, for 40 sessions, it requires at least 20 minutes of scheduled time. |
| Anne van Kesteren | Unconference throughout the whole week would be good. WG meetings are beyond dull. |
| Steven Pemberton | I noticed that there were two different sorts of groups: 1) discussion of new topics that need development within W3C 2) Presentation of existing work, where little discussion took place. It was not clear what a breakout was going to do until you got there, which made planning hard. I can imagine that some people would find the educational breakouts (type 2) useful, so they should still be allowed, but they should be clearly marked as such. |
| Ivan Herman | The allocated time was way too short. Discussion topics came up, people began to get enthusiastic and... we had to cut it short. A missing opportunity. |
| Ann Bassetti | For "Social Web #1 (11:00)": This session would have benefited from more time. Both because there were so many people, and because the subject is so broad. It was valuable to have microphones in the room, which we needed, but it took us time to run them back and forth between people who wanted to speak. Yes, I do think we would have benefited by more prep or clearly stated goals. But, it's my own fault for not having spent more time thinking about this session, or coordinating with Wendy, in advance. In particular we probably should have narrowed the discussion in some manner. OTOH, we would have missed out on the diversity of views and interests. I tried to have an ad-hoc 2nd session (see next set of notes), but that was poorly attended. For "Social web #2 (14:30)": I wish it had occurred to me to propose this session in the beginning, when everyone was studying the session grid. I suspect part of the poor attendance can be attributed to people not realizing that a new session was proposed mid-way. (Or maybe people were just done with talking about 'social'! ;-) |
| Dong-Young Lee | |
| Kiyoshi Tanaka | Some of the session is better to pre-select because not only the organizers but also the participants prepare the session in advance. |
| Felix Sasaki | We would have loved more attendance not from "the usual suspects". The breakout session format is useful; however, "smaller topics" like i18n suffer from parallel sessions. Not sure how to solve the problem; a pre-selection leading to less overlap might help. |
| Dave Raggett | |
| Bryan Sullivan | Encourage breakout sessions to be preceded by a period of discussion and agenda forming that occurs over some months, through a Community Group for example. |
| Johannes Behr | |
| Francois Daoust | |
| Deborah Dahl | |
| Brad Hill |
More details on responses
- Elika Etemad: last responded on 13, November 2012 at 18:27 (UTC)
- Chaals Nevile: last responded on 13, November 2012 at 18:35 (UTC)
- Henry Story: last responded on 13, November 2012 at 18:45 (UTC)
- Alan Stearns: last responded on 13, November 2012 at 18:48 (UTC)
- Ashok Malhotra: last responded on 13, November 2012 at 19:09 (UTC)
- James Graham: last responded on 13, November 2012 at 19:25 (UTC)
- Ian Jacobs: last responded on 13, November 2012 at 20:29 (UTC)
- Jean-Charles Verdie: last responded on 14, November 2012 at 14:01 (UTC)
- Claes Nilsson: last responded on 16, November 2012 at 09:58 (UTC)
- Marcos Caceres: last responded on 19, November 2012 at 12:21 (UTC)
- Alexandre Morgaut: last responded on 19, November 2012 at 15:45 (UTC)
- Anne van Kesteren: last responded on 21, November 2012 at 10:18 (UTC)
- Steven Pemberton: last responded on 21, November 2012 at 10:23 (UTC)
- Ivan Herman: last responded on 21, November 2012 at 13:44 (UTC)
- Ann Bassetti: last responded on 21, November 2012 at 20:37 (UTC)
- Dong-Young Lee: last responded on 22, November 2012 at 11:55 (UTC)
- Kiyoshi Tanaka: last responded on 22, November 2012 at 14:30 (UTC)
- Felix Sasaki: last responded on 22, November 2012 at 18:31 (UTC)
- Dave Raggett: last responded on 26, November 2012 at 18:11 (UTC)
- Bryan Sullivan: last responded on 26, November 2012 at 20:19 (UTC)
- Johannes Behr: last responded on 3, December 2012 at 09:58 (UTC)
- Francois Daoust: last responded on 3, December 2012 at 16:41 (UTC)
- Deborah Dahl: last responded on 3, December 2012 at 20:06 (UTC)
- Brad Hill: last responded on 3, December 2012 at 23:18 (UTC)
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
Report issues
on GitHub project