W3C WBS Home

Results of Questionnaire Social Web XG: Organization of Charter

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: hhalpin@ibiblio.org

This questionnaire was open from 2009-02-18 to 2009-03-03.

40 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Which charter and how many deliverables?
  2. Should we stay one group or divide into task forces?
  3. Should we have minimal requirements for deliverables?
  4. Should Privacy and Trust Work be Done in PLING?
  5. The possibility of task-forces?
  6. Who should Chair the group?
  7. Which parts of the social web most interest you?
  8. Do you wish to nominate yourself as an Editor?
  9. Should we merge interoperability task force with distributed architectures?
  10. Should we merge business practices and landscape taskforce groups?
  11. Should we delete contextual data task force?
  12. Should we delete user experience task force?
  13. Is your organization a W3C member?
  14. If a W3C member, would you be sponsoring the Social Web XG?
  15. If not a W3C Member, would your organization be interested in joining the W3C?

1. 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

ChoiceAll 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.

2. 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

ChoiceAll 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

3. 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

ChoiceAll 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

4. 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

ChoiceAll 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

5. 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

ChoiceAll 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

ChoiceResponders
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

6. 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

ChoiceAll 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

ChoiceResponders
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

7. 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

ChoiceAll 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

8. 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

ChoiceAll 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.

9. 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

ChoiceAll 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

10. 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

ChoiceAll 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

11. 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

ChoiceAll 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

12. 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

ChoiceAll 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

13. 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

ChoiceAll 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

14. 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

ChoiceAll 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.

15. 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

ChoiceAll 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.

More details on responses

Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.


Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire


Maintained by Laurent Carcone, from a development by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org) on an original design by Michael Sperberg-McQueen $Id: showv.php3,v 1.127 2015-02-04 08:52:34 carcone Exp $. Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to lcarcone@w3.org with w3t-sys@w3.org copied (if your mail client supports it, send mail directly to the right persons)