Results of Questionnaire Social Web XG: Organization of Charter

Which charter and how many deliverables?

One proposal is that the proposed charter may be too large, due to having too many deliverables (15). A smaller charter with (5) deliverables was written earlier.

Most other W3C XGs have a single deliverable, a final report, although some groups have up to 3 deliverables. For examples of previous charters, see the W3C list of Incubator Charters. Note that deliverables are the contract of the Incubator Group to the W3C, and it is expected deliverables will be completed within the XG's time frame (1 year).

Summary

Choice	All responders
	Results
Edit the original smaller charter	24
Edit the new larger charter	14

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder	Which charter and how many deliverables?	Rationale
Harry Halpin	Edit the original smaller charter
Daniel Appelquist	Edit the original smaller charter
Michael Hausenblas	Edit the original smaller charter	Focus on two, three aspects. Get consensus on what *can* and *should* be standardized.
Danny Ayers
Alberto San José
Toby Inkster	Edit the original smaller charter	Larger charter is very large, but I'd like to see a few deliverables copied from the larger charter to the smaller one - particularly the distributed architecture deliverables.
Olga Revilla	Edit the new larger charter
Renato Iannella	Edit the original smaller charter	Keep it small and focused on future "standardisation-able technologies"
Karl Dubost	Edit the original smaller charter
Jeffrey Sonstein	Edit the original smaller charter	more manageable number of deliverables
Manrique Lopez	Edit the new larger charter	Even when I prefer the larger charter, I would recommend reducing the number of task-forces/groups and deliverables. A too wide group with a lot of documents/deliverables should become unproductive too easy.
Benjamin Nguyen	Edit the new larger charter
Miquel Martin	Edit the new larger charter	It is more focused on topics and results. People can therefore join knowing what they are joining for.
Powell Andy	Edit the original smaller charter	The larger charter is too complex for a one year XG activity.
Maciej Kuszpa	Edit the original smaller charter
Timothee Anglade	Edit the new larger charter	Not a rationale but a comment: this question is pure push polling.
Matthew Rowe	Edit the original smaller charter	Easier to achieve given the dispersed nature of participants effecting collaboration.
Santos Olga	Edit the new larger charter	Keep the larger charter but produce short and focused deliverables on the specifics of each task force.
Krishna Sankar	Edit the new larger charter
eva janeiro	Edit the original smaller charter
Sánchez González	Edit the original smaller charter
kaushik sethuraman	Edit the original smaller charter
Alexandre Passant	Edit the original smaller charter	Focus on what can reasonably be done in a year
John Breslin	Edit the original smaller charter	Too many deliverables!
Bill Gauvin	Edit the new larger charter	Afraid smaller charter results in major points of interest being lost or delayed.
Christine Perey	Edit the new larger charter	the original charter is too restrictive in scope. It is insufficient to capture the many interests expressed and the areas of contribution which the W3C can offer, provided that there are people who are prepared to work on the deliverables.
Davide Palmisano	Edit the original smaller charter
Michele Minno	Edit the original smaller charter
Michele Mostarda	Edit the new larger charter
Francesco de Leo	Edit the original smaller charter
joaquin Salvachua	Edit the original smaller charter	I think that an agile group may be better.
Sam Critchley	Edit the new larger charter	I don't see why it's a problem to have a larger number of deliverables as long as they're tracked....
Claudio Venezia	Edit the new larger charter
Fabien Gandon	Edit the new larger charter	Start with the large charter ; keep only the parts where we have volunteers to do the job ; derive a sustainable list of deliverables or chapters of deliverables from that.
Ronald Reck	Edit the original smaller charter	It makes sense to under promise and over deliver.
Sören Preibusch	Edit the original smaller charter	Larger charter inappropriate in that it already contains material towards future work without. These text fragments, being in reality rather informal notes, give the impression that some results have already been achieved and may unduly restrict future work or participation.
Dan Brickley	Edit the original smaller charter	I just threw in a 3rd option, sorry. Based on the minimalist approach, http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebCharterTakeThree but I started with fresh text.
Oshani Seneviratne	Edit the original smaller charter	Smaller charter seems more focused and manageable.
Peter Ferne	Edit the original smaller charter	I am strongly in favour of reducing the number of deliverables. Indeed I endorse Dan Brickley's 'third take' [1] with a single deliverable. It seems much better to remain flexible at this early stage. [1]: http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebCharterTakeThree
Hans Constandt	Edit the new larger charter	This subject has different level of complexities as well as the interrelations and dependencies.

Should we stay one group or divide into task forces?

Usually within the W3C a "task force" is meant to be set-up to operate between groups. However, it has been suggested that the Social Web XG divide into task forces based on interest, where task-forces are appointed when there is too much activity on distinct subjects and separate lists and telecons need to be set up. Should we start as a single group and divide into task forces as needed, or start the XG divided into task-forces?

Summary

Choice	All responders
	Results
Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.	15
Use task-forces, even if activity is low.	17
Don't care.	8

Details

Responder	Should we stay one group or divide into task forces?	Comments
Harry Halpin	Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.
Daniel Appelquist	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.
Michael Hausenblas	Don't care.	I'm missing a fourth option: create two or three XGs. Hence I *had* to choose don't care ...
Danny Ayers	Don't care.
Alberto San José	Don't care.
Toby Inkster	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.	It depends on the number of people who are involved and how eclectic their interests are really. If it turns out that everybody is interested in everything, then dividing into task forces will just add administrative burden and most people would just feel it necessary to subscribe to all the mailing lists. However, if it turns out that certain (albeit important) topics have a smaller number of interested parties (say, less than 50% of the XG want to be involved), then spinning them off as a focussed task force seems to make sense.
Olga Revilla	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.
Renato Iannella	Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.
Karl Dubost	Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.
Jeffrey Sonstein	Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.
Manrique Lopez	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.	Having no more than 4 task-forces would be OK. I've am involved in W3C Mobile Web Initiative, and more than 4 task-forces with people involved in several TF at same time become hard too follow and get the targets completed. There must be a weekly teleconference for the main group to follow task-forces progresses.
Benjamin Nguyen	Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.
Miquel Martin	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.	Task forces allow people who are only interested in some topics to filter out the noise of the others, while allowing people to jump from task to task as needed
Powell Andy	Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.
Maciej Kuszpa	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.
Timothee Anglade	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.
Matthew Rowe	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.
Santos Olga	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.	helps to focus on the core issues
Krishna Sankar	Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.
eva janeiro	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.
Sánchez González	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.
kaushik sethuraman	Don't care.
Alexandre Passant	Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.	No TF for the smaller charter, but in case the larger charter is adopted, TF would be necessary
John Breslin	Don't care.
Bill Gauvin	Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.	Should remain as one group for the first year to define specifically what the Social Web XG is, then break up in a year into specific groups (if required), but still require representation in the larger group. Try to prevent smaller groups from morphing into new, unrelated interest.
Christine Perey	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.
Davide Palmisano	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.
Michele Minno	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.
Michele Mostarda	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.
Francesco de Leo	Don't care.
joaquin Salvachua	Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.
Sam Critchley	Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.	Unless we get to hundreds of mails per day, let's stick in one group.
Claudio Venezia	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.
Fabien Gandon	Don't care.	I just want us to focus whether it is through tasks forces or not.
Ronald Reck	Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.
Sören Preibusch	Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.	ad-hoc teams form as necessary
Dan Brickley	Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.	I believe the DataPortability.org project suffered significantly from premature taskforceism.
Oshani Seneviratne	Keep to one group, do not use task-forces unless absolutely necessary.
Peter Ferne	Don't care.	It seems clear to me that there will be ad hoc groupings of people interested in particular areas. Whether they are formalised as 'Task Forces' or not doesn't seem particularly important.
Hans Constandt	Use task-forces, even if activity is low.	Higher probability of success

Should we have minimal requirements for deliverables?

Should every deliverable have at least 2-3 people willing to work on it and two separate editors who are working on no other W3C documents as editors? Please read the guide to get an idea about how specifications are generally developed.

While this group is not producing specifications but Incubator Group reports, work from this group may eventually feed into specifications. Also note that any one in the Social Web XG can participate in the creation of or comment on any document, the role of the Editor is just to draft and maintain the document so it expresses the consensus of the XG..

Summary

Choice	All responders
	Results
yes	24
no	4
concur	5
abstain	6

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder	Should we have minimal requirements for deliverables?	Rationale
Harry Halpin	yes
Daniel Appelquist	abstain
Michael Hausenblas	yes
Danny Ayers	yes	Caveat: the bar suggested here seems high - 2 people adequately motivated should be enough. (I think this will largely be self-organizing).
Alberto San José	abstain
Toby Inkster	abstain
Olga Revilla	concur
Renato Iannella	abstain	We should not be as prescriptive as to define Editors in the Charter. We should be as open as possible when defining the charter deliverables.
Karl Dubost	yes
Jeffrey Sonstein	yes
Manrique Lopez	concur
Benjamin Nguyen	yes
Miquel Martin	concur
Powell Andy	yes	Every deliverable should have 2-3 people working on it as evidence towards it representing consensus position.
Maciej Kuszpa	abstain
Timothee Anglade	yes
Matthew Rowe	concur
Santos Olga	yes
Krishna Sankar	no	1 editor with 2-3 people should work. Editor should not be editor for other XG docs. But all can be members of other TFs
eva janeiro	yes
Sánchez González	concur
kaushik sethuraman	yes
Alexandre Passant	yes
John Breslin
Bill Gauvin	yes	This has worked well in the past, try to prevent people from being the editor in more than two groups.
Christine Perey	yes
Davide Palmisano	yes	only if the requirements will be not too ambitious in term of effort to be done, we are an XG not a WG.
Michele Minno	no
Michele Mostarda	yes
Francesco de Leo	abstain
joaquin Salvachua	yes
Sam Critchley	yes	Yes, then I can get someone to explain to me how to write a spec doc and can follow a lead rather than read a lengthy doc and take a stab in the dark.
Claudio Venezia	no
Fabien Gandon	yes
Ronald Reck	yes
Sören Preibusch	no	premature commitment
Dan Brickley	yes	We are an XG, not an IG, WG, startup or EU research project. These are supposed to be small nimble groups that get things moving. Heavy lifting comes later, after we survey the landscape and get people talking. Anything else is not an incubator really.
Oshani Seneviratne	yes
Peter Ferne	yes	Easily met if we have a single formal deliverable. I do not mind whether the editor(s) are also working on other W3C documents as editors.
Hans Constandt	yes

Should Privacy and Trust Work be Done in PLING?

Should Privacy and Trust Work for social networks be done in the already-existing W3C Privacy Languages Interest Group (PLING)? See http://www.w3.org/Policy/pling/wiki/Main_Page for more info on PLING.

Summary

Choice	All responders
	Results
yes	22
no	16

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder	Should Privacy and Trust Work be Done in PLING?
Harry Halpin	yes
Daniel Appelquist	yes
Michael Hausenblas	no	1. It's an IG and doesn't produce or prepare RECs 2. It's only chartered till June 2009, see http://www.w3.org/Policy/2007/ig-charter.html
Danny Ayers	no	While I don't want to say PLING shouldn't do work on social networks, I believe the requirements for social web are generally much more lightweight than fully-blown policy languages, and these are likely to get better attention under the SocialWebXG umbrella.
Alberto San José
Toby Inkster	yes	But only if PLING's charter is extended at least to the end of the social networking XG.
Olga Revilla	yes
Renato Iannella	yes	This will be a joint PLING/XG Deliverable
Karl Dubost	no	The work could be a quick good input for PLING in a more agile way.
Jeffrey Sonstein	no
Manrique Lopez	yes	But we could work in contact closely.
Benjamin Nguyen	no
Miquel Martin	no	Concur should be an option on this question...
Powell Andy	no	Don't know but this feels like a wider issue that just the 'privacy language'.
Maciej Kuszpa	yes
Timothee Anglade	yes	Only if an appropriate structure also looking at trust and peer-based trust is available or can be created at PLING.
Matthew Rowe	no
Santos Olga	no	something to be discussed in more detail
Krishna Sankar	no	Looking at PLING, it is a policy language group while our Privacy/Trust is about use cases and patterns for social networks. Looks like they are two different groups.
eva janeiro	yes
Sánchez González
kaushik sethuraman	yes
Alexandre Passant	yes
John Breslin	yes	But only if there can be coordination with that group.
Bill Gauvin	no	There is an intersection, so both groups should be aware of each other, but PLING should not be the primary group where social networks is involved.
Christine Perey	no	not sure. I think that there are many important ideas that are best treated by specialists in social networks. Why not invite the PLING to contribute to the work of this task force?
Davide Palmisano	yes
Michele Minno	yes
Michele Mostarda	no
Francesco de Leo	yes
joaquin Salvachua	yes	If they are working on it, or in similar themes, will be better for them to go on from the point they are right now.
Sam Critchley	yes
Claudio Venezia	no
Fabien Gandon	yes	But did we ask them ? Are they willing to host this activity? Are they interested? Are they aware of that question?
Ronald Reck	yes
Sören Preibusch	yes	but interfacing actively with SocialWebXG. The overlap will be through shared affiliations.
Dan Brickley	yes	...although we should take care to have cross-group links
Oshani Seneviratne	no	What would the "social web" be without privacy and trust? :) While PLING could overlook the general landscape of policy languages, I believe this charter should produce outputs related to these two very important aspects.
Peter Ferne	no	Yes or No are poor options. Not *only* in PLING. Presumably those in this group wanting to work on privacy and trust will keep abreast of relevant work in PLING and perhaps even collaborate with PLING.
Hans Constandt	yes

The possibility of task-forces?

summary | by responder | by choice

If we have a charter where we divide into task-forces, how is it implemented? Please check all that apply.

Summary

Choice	All responders
	Results
Single teleconference	14
Multiple teleconferences	26
Single List-serv	24
Multiple List-servs	12

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder	The possibility of task-forces?	Comments
Harry Halpin	Single teleconference Single List-serv
Daniel Appelquist	Multiple teleconferences Multiple List-servs
Michael Hausenblas	Multiple teleconferences Single List-serv
Danny Ayers	Single teleconference Multiple teleconferences Single List-serv	A single high-level reporting telecon, with the option of multiple telecons for details of work.
Alberto San José	Multiple teleconferences Single List-serv	Start every message to the list with "[Task force name] subject text" should enough to know if you want to read it, while keeping all information available to all members.
Toby Inkster	Single teleconference Single List-serv Multiple List-servs
Olga Revilla	Single teleconference Multiple teleconferences Single List-serv
Renato Iannella	Single teleconference Single List-serv
Karl Dubost	Single teleconference Single List-serv
Jeffrey Sonstein	Multiple teleconferences Single List-serv
Manrique Lopez	Multiple teleconferences Multiple List-servs	One list for each task-force, and one global list. And one teleconference for each task-force once a week, and one global teleconference twice a month for the global charter.
Benjamin Nguyen	Multiple teleconferences Single List-serv
Miquel Martin	Multiple teleconferences Multiple List-servs	Task forces allow people who are only interested in some topics to filter out the noise of the others, while allowing people to jump from task to task as needed. Phone conferences and list-servs are required for that
Powell Andy	Multiple teleconferences Single List-serv
Maciej Kuszpa	Multiple List-servs
Timothee Anglade	Single teleconference Multiple List-servs
Matthew Rowe	Multiple teleconferences Multiple List-servs
Santos Olga	Multiple teleconferences Single List-serv
Krishna Sankar	Multiple teleconferences Multiple List-servs
eva janeiro	Multiple List-servs
Sánchez González	Single List-serv
kaushik sethuraman	Multiple teleconferences
Alexandre Passant	Multiple teleconferences Single List-serv
John Breslin	Single teleconference Single List-serv
Bill Gauvin	Multiple teleconferences
Christine Perey	Multiple teleconferences Single List-serv Multiple List-servs	We need to be able to focus on specific topics at the task force level. and there should also be one monthly conf call for all the leaders and anyone else who wants to know what's happening in other task forces.
Davide Palmisano	Single teleconference Single List-serv
Michele Minno	Multiple teleconferences Single List-serv
Michele Mostarda	Single teleconference
Francesco de Leo
joaquin Salvachua	Single teleconference Single List-serv
Sam Critchley	Multiple teleconferences Multiple List-servs
Claudio Venezia	Multiple teleconferences
Fabien Gandon	Multiple teleconferences Single List-serv
Ronald Reck	Multiple teleconferences Multiple List-servs
Sören Preibusch	Single teleconference Multiple teleconferences Single List-serv
Dan Brickley	Single teleconference Multiple teleconferences Single List-serv	We can make it up as we go along. Some sub-groups (eg. microformats related) may not want to use telephony at all. Others might love telephones. We can work around this.
Oshani Seneviratne	Single teleconference Single List-serv
Peter Ferne	Multiple teleconferences Single List-serv	A single list keeps everyone in the loop. Telecons should be kept short and sweet.
Hans Constandt	Multiple teleconferences

View by choice

Choice	Responders
Single teleconference	Harry Halpin Danny Ayers Toby Inkster Olga Revilla Renato Iannella Karl Dubost Timothee Anglade John Breslin Davide Palmisano Michele Mostarda joaquin Salvachua Sören Preibusch Dan Brickley Oshani Seneviratne
Multiple teleconferences	Daniel Appelquist Michael Hausenblas Danny Ayers Alberto San José Olga Revilla Jeffrey Sonstein Manrique Lopez Benjamin Nguyen Miquel Martin Powell Andy Matthew Rowe Santos Olga Krishna Sankar kaushik sethuraman Alexandre Passant Bill Gauvin Christine Perey Michele Minno Sam Critchley Claudio Venezia Fabien Gandon Ronald Reck Sören Preibusch Dan Brickley Peter Ferne Hans Constandt
Single List-serv	Harry Halpin Michael Hausenblas Danny Ayers Alberto San José Toby Inkster Olga Revilla Renato Iannella Karl Dubost Jeffrey Sonstein Benjamin Nguyen Powell Andy Santos Olga Sánchez González Alexandre Passant John Breslin Christine Perey Davide Palmisano Michele Minno joaquin Salvachua Fabien Gandon Sören Preibusch Dan Brickley Oshani Seneviratne Peter Ferne
Multiple List-servs	Daniel Appelquist Toby Inkster Manrique Lopez Miquel Martin Maciej Kuszpa Timothee Anglade Matthew Rowe Krishna Sankar eva janeiro Christine Perey Sam Critchley Ronald Reck

Who should Chair the group?

summary | by responder | by choice

Who should chair the group? This includes the responsibility of making sure the XG follows the W3C Process, that the deliverables are delivered on time, and of organizing teleconferences (reserving a bridge, announcing it, putting together the agenda, etc.). Note that two chairs can be chosen. See the W3C Guide to Consensus and the Quick Start Guide to Incubator Groups for more knowledge about the role of chairing in the W3C.

Summary

Choice	All responders
	Results
Tim Anglade	1
Dan Brickley	12
Claudio Venezia	5
Fabien Gandon	4
Harry Halpin	13
Renato Iannella
Krishna Sankar	1
No preference	18

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder	Who should Chair the group?	Rationale
Harry Halpin	No preference
Daniel Appelquist	Dan Brickley
Michael Hausenblas	Harry Halpin	Where is Christine? Why can't I chair? ;)
Danny Ayers	Harry Halpin
Alberto San José	No preference
Toby Inkster	Dan Brickley Harry Halpin	Also would be happy with many of the others, but I can only choose two.
Olga Revilla
Renato Iannella	No preference	I will abstain as I am a candidate
Karl Dubost	Dan Brickley Harry Halpin
Jeffrey Sonstein	No preference
Manrique Lopez	No preference
Benjamin Nguyen	Dan Brickley Harry Halpin
Miquel Martin	No preference
Powell Andy	No preference
Maciej Kuszpa	Claudio Venezia Harry Halpin
Timothee Anglade	No preference
Matthew Rowe	No preference
Santos Olga	No preference
Krishna Sankar	No preference
eva janeiro	No preference
Sánchez González	No preference
kaushik sethuraman	No preference
Alexandre Passant	Fabien Gandon Harry Halpin
John Breslin	Dan Brickley Harry Halpin
Bill Gauvin	No preference
Christine Perey	Tim Anglade No preference	there can only be one person from the Semantic Web group, there should be more representatives from industry, or at least people willing to "cross the boundary" and make the work of the W3C relevant to businesses.
Davide Palmisano	Dan Brickley Claudio Venezia
Michele Minno	Dan Brickley Claudio Venezia
Michele Mostarda	Dan Brickley Claudio Venezia
Francesco de Leo	Claudio Venezia
joaquin Salvachua	No preference
Sam Critchley	No preference
Claudio Venezia
Fabien Gandon	Dan Brickley Harry Halpin	Just because I know them and saw them chairing before.
Ronald Reck	Dan Brickley Harry Halpin
Sören Preibusch	Fabien Gandon Krishna Sankar
Dan Brickley	Fabien Gandon Harry Halpin	I'm available for co-chairing, but I would be perfectly happy to see Fabien and Harry do it.
Oshani Seneviratne	Dan Brickley Harry Halpin
Peter Ferne	Dan Brickley	To quote Dan: "The basic idea is simple. Our charter should describe in high level terms what we expect to do, without promising things we can't be sure of delivering. Our main duty and central focus is a final report proposing a way forward based on a year's collaborative and investigative work. ...we can't realistically predict in detail which areas will get a lot of attention and work." I like Dan's focus on flexibility and collaboration.
Hans Constandt	Fabien Gandon Harry Halpin	From now on I can dedicate time and I'd be willing to cochair. Major interest in industrial application and security (focus on health care).

View by choice

Choice	Responders
Tim Anglade	Christine Perey
Dan Brickley	Daniel Appelquist Toby Inkster Karl Dubost Benjamin Nguyen John Breslin Davide Palmisano Michele Minno Michele Mostarda Fabien Gandon Ronald Reck Oshani Seneviratne Peter Ferne
Claudio Venezia	Maciej Kuszpa Davide Palmisano Michele Minno Michele Mostarda Francesco de Leo
Fabien Gandon	Alexandre Passant Sören Preibusch Dan Brickley Hans Constandt
Harry Halpin	Michael Hausenblas Danny Ayers Toby Inkster Karl Dubost Benjamin Nguyen Maciej Kuszpa Alexandre Passant John Breslin Fabien Gandon Ronald Reck Dan Brickley Oshani Seneviratne Hans Constandt
Renato Iannella
Krishna Sankar	Sören Preibusch
No preference	Harry Halpin Alberto San José Renato Iannella Jeffrey Sonstein Manrique Lopez Miquel Martin Powell Andy Timothee Anglade Matthew Rowe Santos Olga Krishna Sankar eva janeiro Sánchez González kaushik sethuraman Bill Gauvin Christine Perey joaquin Salvachua Sam Critchley

Which parts of the social web most interest you?

If there was multiple task forces, which group would you primarily be interested in? Regardless, what is your key area of interest? If we accept a task-force based model, then these will be the basis of task forces. Otherwise, they will help decide the focus of interest within a single group.

Summary

Choice	All responders
	Results
Don't know yet, will contribute to as many as possible.	3
Accessibility and Internationalization	1
Business Practices	4
Contextual Data	3
User experience	6
Interoperability	10
Distributed Architectures	6
Landscape	1
Privacy and Trust	6

Details

Responder	Which parts of the social web most interest you?	Rationale
Harry Halpin	Interoperability	Also think accessibility and internationalization are quite important.
Daniel Appelquist	Don't know yet, will contribute to as many as possible.
Michael Hausenblas	Privacy and Trust	As of my research line, projects, etc.
Danny Ayers	Interoperability
Alberto San José	User experience	UX is my main skills field. Anyway, I think I can contribute to Distributed Architectures, too.
Toby Inkster	Distributed Architectures	Though I think distributed architecture relies heavily on interoperability, privacy and trust.
Olga Revilla	Accessibility and Internationalization
Renato Iannella	Interoperability
Karl Dubost	Privacy and Trust	but really on focusing on *concrete* user experience and collecting what is possible or not to do today.
Jeffrey Sonstein	User experience
Manrique Lopez	User experience	From my working experience as mobile web consultant and my experience in Mobile Web Initiative, I've found several common points with "User Experience" task-force. Of course, having experience with Semantic Web technologies I would feel comfortable on "Contextual Data" and "Interoperability" task-forces.
Benjamin Nguyen	Don't know yet, will contribute to as many as possible.
Miquel Martin	Distributed Architectures
Powell Andy	Interoperability
Maciej Kuszpa	Business Practices
Timothee Anglade	Landscape
Matthew Rowe	Interoperability	Too many diverse specifications from big name players within the social web must be curbed if interoperability is to be realised between such services.
Santos Olga	User experience	also Accessibility and Internationliazation, and Contextual Data
Krishna Sankar	Privacy and Trust
eva janeiro	User experience
Sánchez González	User experience
kaushik sethuraman	Business Practices
Alexandre Passant	Interoperability	Also interested in Distributed Architectures (overlaps with Interop.) and Trust/Privacy issues in that context
John Breslin	Interoperability
Bill Gauvin	Privacy and Trust	Working on my PhD in this area
Christine Perey	Business Practices	should be able to check off more than one. I have more than one area of interest.
Davide Palmisano	Interoperability
Michele Minno	Contextual Data
Michele Mostarda	Distributed Architectures
Francesco de Leo	Distributed Architectures
joaquin Salvachua	Distributed Architectures
Sam Critchley	Contextual Data	I'd be interested in more than one group...
Claudio Venezia	Contextual Data
Fabien Gandon	Interoperability
Ronald Reck	Don't know yet, will contribute to as many as possible.
Sören Preibusch	Privacy and Trust
Dan Brickley	Distributed Architectures	This is kind of an impossible question. Do you prefer vowels or consonants?
Oshani Seneviratne	Privacy and Trust	Privacy and Trust on the web interests me, and I hope I would be able to contribute to the XG along that line. However, I am also interested in issues related to User experience. However, I am not an expert in HCI.
Peter Ferne	Interoperability	I would like to be able to choose two: Interoperability and Distributed Architectures. They are where my interests and experience lie.
Hans Constandt	Business Practices

Do you wish to nominate yourself as an Editor?

Of the following deliverables, if you believe you have time, which one would you want to editor? Being an editor takes about 1 day a week for a year, although often the work comes in waves, with some periods of almost no work and other periods of 2+ days a week work. The main responsibility of the editor is drafting the document, making sure the document reflects decisions and consensus of the group, and responding to ALL e-mails about the document for the lifetime (1 year) of the group. After this initial poll, another poll will be taken if there are too many editors for a single document, although usually most documents require at least two editors to keep the workload reasonable. For more information, see W3C Editor's Guide. Note that one can contribute in a valuable way without being an editor, and most members of XGs normally are not editors. If you do not want the responsibility of being an editor, please choose the first option.

Summary

Choice	All responders
	Results
No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.	17
A mapping of current popular practices which could benefit from best practices.	1
Report on possible next steps within or outside the W3C	3
Use-case document on when and how user’s privacy is exposed/unknown/uncontrolled	1
Document describing use cases that address already existing needs of users that require portable social data and privacy and trust needs	1
Report describing the recommended best practices for Privacy & Trust	3
A report on Business Metrics
A report on Best Business Practices	1
A report on Best Practices for the collection and use of Contextual Data	2
A report on Best Practices for User Experience Parity
General Standards in Social Networking and Data Portability Use-case document	1
A mapping between various APIs and data formats that are widely deployed for social data.	3
A "Best Practice" guide for portable social data that remains neutral to the underlying technology but states a range of options. It is important to determine how each technology fulfills the use-cases and values of the W3C	2
Scenarios and use cases for distributed social networks	1
Architecture for a distributed social networking infrastructure	1
List of social-networking efforts and activities	1

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder	Do you wish to nominate yourself as an Editor?	Rationale
Harry Halpin	Report on possible next steps within or outside the W3C
Daniel Appelquist
Michael Hausenblas	Report describing the recommended best practices for Privacy & Trust
Danny Ayers	A report on Best Practices for the collection and use of Contextual Data	I'd be happy to edit almost any doc - the one I've chosen just looked most fun :)
Alberto San José
Toby Inkster	A mapping between various APIs and data formats that are widely deployed for social data.
Olga Revilla	Report describing the recommended best practices for Privacy & Trust
Renato Iannella	Report on possible next steps within or outside the W3C	The XG Final Report will be a key deliverable
Karl Dubost	A "Best Practice" guide for portable social data that remains neutral to the underlying technology but states a range of options. It is important to determine how each technology fulfills the use-cases and values of the W3C
Jeffrey Sonstein	A "Best Practice" guide for portable social data that remains neutral to the underlying technology but states a range of options. It is important to determine how each technology fulfills the use-cases and values of the W3C
Manrique Lopez	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.
Benjamin Nguyen	List of social-networking efforts and activities
Miquel Martin	Architecture for a distributed social networking infrastructure	Based on my main interests and degree of involvement
Powell Andy	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.	Note: I am not a W3C member
Maciej Kuszpa	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.
Timothee Anglade	A report on Best Business Practices
Matthew Rowe	A mapping between various APIs and data formats that are widely deployed for social data.	I am working on this exact topic at the moment for my thesis, of which I have already begun mapping work between existing APIs and formalisations.
Santos Olga	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.
Krishna Sankar	Report describing the recommended best practices for Privacy & Trust
eva janeiro	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.
Sánchez González	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.
kaushik sethuraman	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.
Alexandre Passant	A mapping between various APIs and data formats that are widely deployed for social data.	Would be happy to co-edit with someone experienced with the W3C editing process - also interested in the related Best Practices guide and the scenarios ans use-cases
John Breslin	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.
Bill Gauvin	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.
Christine Perey	A mapping of current popular practices which could benefit from best practices.	this is not a good poll question because we do not think all of these will be kept. Further, one should be able to express if they can co-edit. For example, a mapping of current popular practices which could benefit from best practices is a super set of the report on business metrics. I believe it is too early for any "best practices" documents with the exception of security, privacy and trust because that field is further ahead.
Davide Palmisano	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.
Michele Minno	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.
Michele Mostarda	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.
Francesco de Leo	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.
joaquin Salvachua	Scenarios and use cases for distributed social networks
Sam Critchley	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.	I can contribute input to documents, write part of them, but unfortunately don't have one day a week spare for a year.
Claudio Venezia	A report on Best Practices for the collection and use of Contextual Data
Fabien Gandon	General Standards in Social Networking and Data Portability Use-case document
Ronald Reck	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.
Sören Preibusch	Use-case document on when and how user’s privacy is exposed/unknown/uncontrolled	that's very (too) fine-grained. I am willing to contribute -- subject to time restrictions -- in privacy areas, which clearly interface with Best Practices as well.
Dan Brickley	Report on possible next steps within or outside the W3C	I can write, but I prefer finding others to do it and focussing on making sure the right combinations of groups actually talk to each other.
Oshani Seneviratne	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.
Peter Ferne	No thanks, I'll contribute via e-mails to the list and telecons, but do not desire to take on the responsibility of editing a particular document.	I think it's too early to specify al of these deliverables at this level of detail.
Hans Constandt	Document describing use cases that address already existing needs of users that require portable social data and privacy and trust needs	Interested in more than the one selected.

Should we merge interoperability task force with distributed architectures?

If we use task forces as proposed, should we merge interoperability task force with distributed architectures task-forces? Note that both topics can be dealt with in other deliverables or a deliverable without a distinct task-force.

Summary

Choice	All responders
	Results
yes	17
no	8
concur	5
abstain	10

Details

Responder	Should we merge interoperability task force with distributed architectures?	Rationale
Harry Halpin	yes
Daniel Appelquist	abstain
Michael Hausenblas	abstain
Danny Ayers	concur
Alberto San José	concur
Toby Inkster	yes	I think that these two proposed task forces have masses of overlap.
Olga Revilla	abstain
Renato Iannella	yes
Karl Dubost	abstain
Jeffrey Sonstein	yes
Manrique Lopez	yes
Benjamin Nguyen	abstain
Miquel Martin	no
Powell Andy	yes	Reduction of task forces is a 'good thing' and this looks like a reasonable merger.
Maciej Kuszpa	abstain
Timothee Anglade	no
Matthew Rowe	yes	Definitely. These two areas of work are complimentary in that interoperability is required between such architectures for data portability and exportation.
Santos Olga	yes	they have many things in common
Krishna Sankar	yes
eva janeiro	yes
Sánchez González	no
kaushik sethuraman	abstain
Alexandre Passant	yes	Strong overlab between both
John Breslin	yes
Bill Gauvin	no	Again, they should be treated the same for the first year, then divided into task force after if required. The group need to have an all inclusive view before dividing up into task force.
Christine Perey	no
Davide Palmisano	no
Michele Minno	no
Michele Mostarda	yes
Francesco de Leo	yes
joaquin Salvachua	concur
Sam Critchley	abstain
Claudio Venezia	no
Fabien Gandon	yes
Ronald Reck	yes
Sören Preibusch	abstain
Dan Brickley	abstain
Oshani Seneviratne	concur
Peter Ferne	yes	I'm not convinced about the need for separate task forces but I would expect a lot of overlap in interest in these two areas and our organisation (formal or informal) should reflect that.
Hans Constandt	concur

Should we merge business practices and landscape taskforce groups?

If we use task forces as proposed, should we merge business practices with landscape task-forces? Note that both topics can be dealt with in deliverables or a deliverable without a distinct task-force.

Summary

Choice	All responders
	Results
yes	10
no	8
concur	11
abstain	11

Details

Responder	Should we merge business practices and landscape taskforce groups?	Rationale
Harry Halpin	yes
Daniel Appelquist	yes
Michael Hausenblas	abstain
Danny Ayers	concur
Alberto San José	no
Toby Inkster	concur
Olga Revilla	abstain
Renato Iannella	yes
Karl Dubost	abstain
Jeffrey Sonstein	abstain
Manrique Lopez	yes
Benjamin Nguyen	concur
Miquel Martin	yes
Powell Andy	yes	Reduction of task forces is a 'good thing' and this looks like a reasonable merger.
Maciej Kuszpa	abstain
Timothee Anglade	no
Matthew Rowe	concur
Santos Olga	concur
Krishna Sankar	concur
eva janeiro	yes
Sánchez González	no
kaushik sethuraman	concur
Alexandre Passant	concur
John Breslin	yes
Bill Gauvin	no	For the same reason above in section 9
Christine Perey	yes
Davide Palmisano	yes
Michele Minno	no
Michele Mostarda	no
Francesco de Leo	abstain
joaquin Salvachua	no
Sam Critchley	abstain
Claudio Venezia	no
Fabien Gandon	concur
Ronald Reck	abstain
Sören Preibusch	abstain
Dan Brickley	abstain
Oshani Seneviratne	concur
Peter Ferne	abstain	I see some overlap but it's not an area I'm likely to become actively involved in.
Hans Constandt	concur

Should we delete contextual data task force?

If we use task-forces as proposed, should we delete the contextual task force? In comment box, add if you wish we should merge it, or otherwise refine it? Note that the topic can be dealt with in other deliverables without a distinct task-force.

Summary

Choice	All responders
	Results
yes	5
no	16
concur	8
abstain	9

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder	Should we delete contextual data task force?	Comments
Harry Halpin	yes	Is this mobile phone-related? Not sure. If so, would keep a mobile focus deliverable.
Daniel Appelquist	abstain
Michael Hausenblas	abstain
Danny Ayers	no	It should be covered in some manner - merged if necessary.
Alberto San José
Toby Inkster	abstain
Olga Revilla	abstain
Renato Iannella	yes
Karl Dubost
Jeffrey Sonstein	abstain
Manrique Lopez	yes	I think it could be merged with Interoperability/Distribuied Architectures to complete them
Benjamin Nguyen	no
Miquel Martin	concur
Powell Andy	no	Consider merging into Privacy and Trust task force.
Maciej Kuszpa	abstain
Timothee Anglade	no
Matthew Rowe	concur
Santos Olga	yes	I second merging it with Interoperability and Distributed Architectures
Krishna Sankar	concur
eva janeiro	no
Sánchez González	concur
kaushik sethuraman	concur
Alexandre Passant	abstain	Could it be addressesed in PLING ?
John Breslin	no
Bill Gauvin	no	It's too early to delete it. It should be defined and understood.
Christine Perey	no
Davide Palmisano	no	contextual aspects play an important point that makes this task force enjoyably
Michele Minno	no
Michele Mostarda	concur
Francesco de Leo	abstain
joaquin Salvachua	no
Sam Critchley	no	People supposed to be participating in it weren't on the mailing-list until recently.
Claudio Venezia	no
Fabien Gandon	concur	(Yes if there is not enough involvement)
Ronald Reck	no
Sören Preibusch	no
Dan Brickley	yes
Oshani Seneviratne	concur
Peter Ferne	abstain	Contextual issues seem to be cross cutting.
Hans Constandt	no

Should we delete user experience task force?

If we use task forces as proposed, should we delete the user experience task force? Note that the topic can be dealt with in other deliverables without a distinct task-force.

Summary

Choice	All responders
	Results
yes	4
no	19
concur	8
abstain	9

Details

Responder	Should we delete user experience task force?	Comments
Harry Halpin	yes	Is this mobile phone related? Not sure. If so, would keep a mobile focus deliverable.
Daniel Appelquist	abstain
Michael Hausenblas	abstain
Danny Ayers	concur
Alberto San José	no	Just sent an email to the list, advocating for keeping UX in. I edited The UnifiedSocialWebXG charter to explain and expand the UX chapter: http://esw.w3.org/topic/UnifiedSocialXG#head-07d4989ef5f476b9d7daa953514658adf5cc0803
Toby Inkster	abstain
Olga Revilla	no
Renato Iannella	yes
Karl Dubost	abstain
Jeffrey Sonstein	no
Manrique Lopez	no	I think this is one of the key points of this charter and it has an entity on itself.
Benjamin Nguyen	abstain
Miquel Martin	yes
Powell Andy	no	Consider merging with the Distributed Architectures task force.
Maciej Kuszpa	abstain
Timothee Anglade	no
Matthew Rowe	concur
Santos Olga	no	I think it is very relevant to explicitly keep the user side from the technical perspectives
Krishna Sankar	concur
eva janeiro	no
Sánchez González	no
kaushik sethuraman	concur
Alexandre Passant	abstain
John Breslin	no
Bill Gauvin	no	No, it's too early and the other task force will concentrate on specific aspects of user experience and ignore major factors which do not concern them.
Christine Perey	no
Davide Palmisano	no
Michele Minno	no
Michele Mostarda	concur
Francesco de Leo	abstain
joaquin Salvachua	no
Sam Critchley	no
Claudio Venezia	no
Fabien Gandon	concur	(Yes if there is not enough involvement)
Ronald Reck	concur
Sören Preibusch	yes
Dan Brickley	abstain
Oshani Seneviratne	concur
Peter Ferne	no	Another cross cutting issue but a vitally important and often under served one.
Hans Constandt	no

Is your organization a W3C member?

Is your organization a W3C Member? Membership is not required for participation in the Social Web XG, as one can be an Invited Expert. It is easier to become an Invited Expert in an XG than a Working Group, and therefore the Social Web XG expects a number of Invited Experts.

Summary

Choice	All responders
	Results
yes	22
no	18

Details

Responder	Is your organization a W3C member?
Harry Halpin	yes
Daniel Appelquist	yes
Michael Hausenblas	yes
Danny Ayers	yes
Alberto San José	no
Toby Inkster	no
Olga Revilla	no
Renato Iannella	yes
Karl Dubost	no
Jeffrey Sonstein	yes
Manrique Lopez	yes
Benjamin Nguyen	yes
Miquel Martin	no
Powell Andy	no
Maciej Kuszpa	no
Timothee Anglade	no
Matthew Rowe	no
Santos Olga	no
Krishna Sankar	yes
eva janeiro	no
Sánchez González	no
kaushik sethuraman	yes
Alexandre Passant	yes
John Breslin	yes
Bill Gauvin	no	Really not sure, Symantec has been involved in the past, but not sure what our status is lately.
Christine Perey	no
Davide Palmisano	yes
Michele Minno	yes
Michele Mostarda	yes
Francesco de Leo	yes
joaquin Salvachua	yes
Sam Critchley	no
Claudio Venezia	yes
Fabien Gandon	yes
Ronald Reck	no
Sören Preibusch	no
Dan Brickley	yes
Oshani Seneviratne	yes
Peter Ferne	no
Hans Constandt	yes

If a W3C member, would you be sponsoring the Social Web XG?

Would your organization be listed as an initiating member of the Social Web XG? Note that at least 4 W3C member organizations are required, and this question only applies to W3C member organizations. Also, explicit permission of your AC (Advisory Committee) representative is needed. If you are not sure, ask them and make a note of that in the comment box. If your organization is a W3C member and will not support the Social Web XG, please give the W3C a hint why.

Summary

Choice	All responders
	Results
Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.	16
I do not belong to a W3C member organization.	16
My organization is a W3C member and will not support the Social Web XG.
My organization is a W3C member but I do not have permission from my AC rep to endorse the charter.	5

(3 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder	If a W3C member, would you be sponsoring the Social Web XG?
Harry Halpin	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
Daniel Appelquist	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
Michael Hausenblas	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
Danny Ayers	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
Alberto San José	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Toby Inkster	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Olga Revilla	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Renato Iannella	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
Karl Dubost	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Jeffrey Sonstein	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
Manrique Lopez	My organization is a W3C member but I do not have permission from my AC rep to endorse the charter.
Benjamin Nguyen	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
Miquel Martin	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Powell Andy	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Maciej Kuszpa
Timothee Anglade	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Matthew Rowe	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Santos Olga	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Krishna Sankar	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
eva janeiro	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Sánchez González
kaushik sethuraman	My organization is a W3C member but I do not have permission from my AC rep to endorse the charter.
Alexandre Passant	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
John Breslin	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
Bill Gauvin	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Christine Perey	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Davide Palmisano	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
Michele Minno	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
Michele Mostarda	My organization is a W3C member but I do not have permission from my AC rep to endorse the charter.
Francesco de Leo	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
joaquin Salvachua	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
Sam Critchley	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Claudio Venezia
Fabien Gandon	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
Ronald Reck	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Sören Preibusch	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Dan Brickley	Yes, my organization is a W3C member and would like to support the Social Web XG.
Oshani Seneviratne	My organization is a W3C member but I do not have permission from my AC rep to endorse the charter.
Peter Ferne	I do not belong to a W3C member organization.
Hans Constandt	My organization is a W3C member but I do not have permission from my AC rep to endorse the charter.

If not a W3C Member, would your organization be interested in joining the W3C?

If not a W3C Member, would your organization be interested in joining the W3C? There is a membership fee the varies by organizational income, but there are added benefits, such as the ability to direct the W3C via Advisory Committee Representation, and increased access to W3C facilities and the ability to easily join Working Groups. See membership benefit details.

Summary

Choice	All responders
	Results
Yes, would be interested in joining W3C.	4
Not now.	14
Am already a member of the W3C.	20

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder	If not a W3C Member, would your organization be interested in joining the W3C?	Comments
Harry Halpin	Am already a member of the W3C.
Daniel Appelquist	Am already a member of the W3C.
Michael Hausenblas	Am already a member of the W3C.
Danny Ayers	Am already a member of the W3C.
Alberto San José	Not now.
Toby Inkster	Not now.
Olga Revilla	Not now.	Too expensive for my organization :-(
Renato Iannella	Am already a member of the W3C.
Karl Dubost	Not now.
Jeffrey Sonstein	Am already a member of the W3C.
Manrique Lopez	Am already a member of the W3C.
Benjamin Nguyen	Am already a member of the W3C.
Miquel Martin	Yes, would be interested in joining W3C.
Powell Andy	Yes, would be interested in joining W3C.	Membership is currently under consideration.
Maciej Kuszpa	Not now.
Timothee Anglade	Yes, would be interested in joining W3C.
Matthew Rowe	Not now.
Santos Olga	Not now.
Krishna Sankar	Am already a member of the W3C.
eva janeiro	Yes, would be interested in joining W3C.
Sánchez González	Not now.
kaushik sethuraman	Am already a member of the W3C.
Alexandre Passant	Am already a member of the W3C.
John Breslin	Am already a member of the W3C.
Bill Gauvin	Not now.	Again not sure the status
Christine Perey	Not now.
Davide Palmisano	Am already a member of the W3C.
Michele Minno	Am already a member of the W3C.
Michele Mostarda	Am already a member of the W3C.
Francesco de Leo	Am already a member of the W3C.
joaquin Salvachua	Am already a member of the W3C.
Sam Critchley	Not now.
Claudio Venezia
Fabien Gandon	Am already a member of the W3C.
Ronald Reck	Not now.
Sören Preibusch	Not now.
Dan Brickley
Oshani Seneviratne	Am already a member of the W3C.
Peter Ferne	Not now.	Can't justify the cost.
Hans Constandt	Am already a member of the W3C.