LLD XG

<emma> Previous: 2001-05-05 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/05/05-lld-minutes.html

<emma> Scribe: William

<tbaker> scribenick: ww

<dvila> thanks antoine

ADMIN

do we accept the minutes from previeous telecon?

ACCEPTED

schedule for upcoming teleconferences until end of august because we are in process of requesting extension 3 months

emma: final report...
... idea of transitioning to community group
... conferences are every two weeks in july and august
... still waiting for approval from w3c for extension
... shouldn't be an issue
... just waiting for process to be completed...
... when it is will inform on mailing list
... questions?

<kcoyle> having trouble with boston phone number: all circuits busy

emma: suggest oto hand floor to harry to introduce concept of community groups
... explain how we can transition, what would be the interest and so on

harry: what's going on is that people can ... w3c is doing one of the larger porocess changes in last 5 years or de cade

<harry> http://www.w3.org/QA/2011/04/coming_soon_w3c_community_grou.html

harry: introduce more bottom up process called community groups or business groups
... quick overview...
... official details are linked from ... blog post
... is aproved by w3c management and advisory board

<harry> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/

harry: to give broad overview
... community groups are way for any kind of people w3c members or not, to use w3c resources to create draft standards

<kcoyle> karen

harry: based on feedback from incubator groups process
... IGs will be phased out
... all new groups will be WGs, business groups or community groups
... community groups will be made on show of support...
... run until they are finished,... no defined ending date
... working on standards and specs takes longer than you think
... most groups have had to ask for extensions

<jodi> hmm...an "end date" has been quite helpful in focusing our work and justifying our scope

harry: and often not sure how long it will take for specs to get adopted...
... general overarching process... interesting as well... keep work experimental until point where it is adopted enough that it is justified to adopt as standard
... launched sometime in june... a dozen community groups
... too early for your schedule...
... but then it is possible for any incubator group to transition into community group after charter expired
... community of interest groups optimised for individualparticipation

<harry> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/final

harry: so what we've sort of done is taken open web license and modified so it can work with w3c license
... so what you have is license that allows individuals to do non-asserts
... and you have a clear path to non-royalty status
... make everyone in CG sign lightweight non-patent-assert and then spin into WG
... incubator groups and community groups expected to more or less run themselves
... business groups provide higher staff connection
... because more w3c resources, minor fee if no w3c member orgs involved
... w3c member becomes team contact
... so example of business group,,, oil and gas industry... want to make rdf vocab to model oil and gas...
... would like w3c staff help to do this...
... in crafting the vocabulary and helping put out information about it
... that is the difference...
... community groups have no staff connectivity...
... business groups have more staff connectivity
... working groups have the most...
... any questions on community groups?
... expectation is when group is finished... would mail harry or dan ... coralie
... and we would set up infrastructure for it
... and ask that a new scoping statement drawn up by group
... scoping statement would be charter as CG

tbaker: i wanted to clarify...
... first of all maybe you could just define what a non-assert is
... but wanted to clarify....
... if i understand correctly... the purpose of this new way of doing things is making it easy for individuals to participate...
... but when i look at the community final agreement it looks like an individual is being asked to say they can sign on behalf of their employer...
... so i wanted to clarify to what extent they are taken as individuals or representing their employers

harry: so actually two questions. are they representing their employers?
... and what is the legal bounds.?
... if employer is w3c member, obviously you should keep your representative aware
... if you are not a member...
... if royalty free agreement... can as a company verify and agree nto be bound not to assert patents rights... legally binding way... agree not to ask for any sort of warranties by implementors of the specs
... actually pretty strong...
... often means getting out the patent lawyers
... which can take years
... as an individual... certify that not any patents in the spec

tbaker: looking at doc, "i certify that i authorised on behalf of organisation below..." "commitments of that organisation"
... is pretty strong

<edsu> tbaker++

harry: individuals may sign pretending to sign as individuals... but could be problem in patent-heavy space... so agree on behalf of employer
... this specification quite short compared to royalty free ...
... if you have more detailed questions, would have to refer to w3c legal staff for point by point
... if you form ig, don't have to sign until decide to push spec forward

tbaker: i see this as potential issue...
... i think ... sometimes people participate in WGs ... more than their employers realise
... because they are committe to whatever it s...
... i have a slight concern that people will hesitate when they see this...\
... sgo up the line, get management involved, starts getting more coomplicated

harry: if someone contributing whose management would not improve, to avoid patent problems...

<jodi> As digital library grows into CS territory, there certainly is potential for patent issues, IMO.

<jodi> less than elsewhere, of course!

harry: would be best to participate ... not contribute text... even if they did... no diffference between IG process if something you think would go into a working draft, you'd have the same problem
... what this allows you to do is bulletproof yourself as early as possible and give w3c higher assurances that things that come out of WG can be a spec
... shouldn't be a showstopper but will forward to legall team and ask for clarification

antoine: my question was about scope of different groups, CGs vs. BGs... is there a formal criterion that would classify into one or the other category...
... my feeling is that library or wider cultural heritage group is not so focused in some field of technology... looks a bit like a business litmus test?...

harry: ultimately the only difference is staff connectivity...
... so that's the litmus test about what is legally enforced as regards to staff time
... reason why some groups wanted more staff time... outreach and help with specs
... BGs aimed at business verticals...
... more of an internal question of how much connectivity you want to staff
... more about fitting your neeeds than fitting a particular kind of scoping
... exact same, real difference staff connectivity
... if you wanted to transition you could transition to either

antoine: is it possible to transition frmo one to the other... if we start as CG and then think we need more W3C staff...

<emma> Comparison table of W3C groups : http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/#comparison

harry: we believe that probably will be the case, but haven't had anybody do that yet... haven't launched them yet
... whole point of process is less constraints...
... but don't want to lose the energy

<GordonD> Gordon just joined

harry: there will be a community council so that the chairs of CGs will have more regular meetings with W3C staff to check in on a regular basis
... to clarify, the w3c does not want ... what we're going to do to prevent that is to have regular meetings with chairs...
... regular meetings to make sure groups are akien care of

<Zakim> emma, you wanted to ask about non member institutions

harry: people complaining that the charter system is hard, open-ended and experimental

emma: relatedly... question to confirm that CG seems to be suited to working for a community where lot of institutions that are not W3C members

<jodi> +1 to involvement without having to be W3C members or register as invited experts!

emma: lot of smaller institutions aren't able to become members... common in cultural heritage... CG very relevant for our community

<GordonD> +1

<edsu> jodi: concur

<dvila> +1

harry: practical level... more or less open to individual and non-member orgs from the beginning
... make more suited to your community

<antoine> +1

harry: with BG don't ask that every member pays a fee, just that enough tho pay for staff time, then everyone else in for free

emma: i see our participants are very happy about it

edsu: hi... i was ... i guess... just as a context for ... following on from tom's question

<antoine> but even the business group "funding" scheme could work for us as well

edsu: it would be very difficult for me to sign anything as an LOC employee with out getting the legal department involved

<emma> +1, edsu !

edsu: not patent lawyers... but still a barrier... i could get through it but it would take some time... so to say it is not a barrier.. i think lot of people in similar situation
... you mentioned 12 to start in june, curious who they are, some examples?
... also... that and BGs get extra staffing, can you provide examples of what services staff would provide

harry: in order, not saying not a barrier, saying it is less than signing full royalty-free agreement
... large companies like yahoo won't sign such a thing
... these are lighter weight... have assurances they may sign...
... for people like you, i would assume you could probably get by without signing, just have to be careful... responsibility of group to make sure patents don't slip in for future spec
... if you become WG you have to put something you want to put as a spec... by the time you make that suggestion you need to have all contribuors to spec to have signed agreement
... so not barrier to joining the group...
... don't want situation where CG makes a spec and no patent license involved and spec sneaks through
... if you have concerns W3cC legal to help clarify

edsu: concerned it would be a barrier... legal people need to talk to legal people, that's a barrier

harry: same point... depends on what group is doing...
... overview report? wouldn't require patent non-asserts
... if vocabulary? if you feel vocab can be used by libraries need to make sure no patents

<jodi> +1 to clarity

edsu: needs to be clear what someone has to do to be involved in community
... needs to be clearer than it is now

harry: if produces spec... will have to sign... to become WD

edsu: when they want to push it forward that's when they woul have to sign...

harry: give patent lawyers years to go through patents...
... strong commitment helps companies like ibm relax a bit...
... to go back to other point...
... launching open digital rights, micropayments, html5... federated social web... usdl
... wide variety

<tbaker> Harry: When a spec produced by the Community becomes a candidate for getting W3C status -- that is the point at which non-asserts need to be assigned. (My interpretation.)

harry: was your final point?

edsu: staffing, what services w3c would provide to BGs?

harry: staffing ... would essentially deal with ability of groups to do large amounts of outreach
... e.g. w3c maintains giant database of industry... if you want everybody to use your spec... want to make sure all the players are at the table...
... requires busdev...
... another example is liason... would like work to be part of gameplan for rdf stack or html5 stack or etc... requires a lot of work for w3c staff to integrate your group
... final is industry verticals... lots of healthcare lifesciences wanting to e.g. produce owl version of snomed, not owl experts and want to make sure it stays consistent woth owl... requires staff to do homework and make sure it fits... lot of time commitment
... a bit different for each group... maybe at some point this might come up...

<jodi> avoiding getting "silo'd" by being a non-profit interest vs. business interest is important going forward

edsu: difference between a BG and a WG

<jodi> to avoid the sorts of divergence the library has had from IT best practices in the past decades

harry: WG has devoted staff time. s.t. if you are a W3C employee some percentage of your time is devoted to shepherding that work through the W3cC process
... with BG smaller amount of time
... with BG very much more ad-hoc... we want to push vocab out, then get staff to help

<emma> @jodi I don't think it's the case here, the difference is not about being non-profit, but about the amount of work the group is asking from W3C

<edsu> sorry to monopolize time :(

harry: with some BG may require every telecon... but that might mean rejigging of the fee...

<jodi> emma: I understand. My worry is that less staff attention NOT be less attention from people following the IT state of the art

<jodi> edsu: thanks for asking good questions for all of us! not monopolizing IMO! :)

harry: need to sit down with management and figure out what staff time is involved. less than a WG more than 0.
... some CG say, really could have used some help... now if they do help, they are doing it as an individual basis not as their job...

<emma> @jodi do you think that's the case re: the XG ?

<tbaker> @edsu, you are tasking good questions

harry: we want if certain key points come up for group, BG wants staff to devote some time to it...

emma: any other questions

<jodi> congrats harry! :)

harry: the key is you guys will be the first group to transition after initial transition period
... might be few bumps because nobody's done it before

harry: email us, with some notice... and we'll work it out... that would be good... and we do want to see final report done

<antoine> thanks, harry!

<tbaker> Harry: Ideally inform of intent to transition at least one month before (extended) end of charter.

harry: that would be great

<edsu> harry++ # thanks!

<tbaker> thank you, harry!

<dvila> thank you harry!

emma: thank you, we will continue to discuss and send questions

harry: .we'll be in bilbao may take a bit of time...

everyone: thank you

emma: few minutes more... think it's interesting to transition to CG
... invited harry because seems to be straightforward process to transition from IG to CG
... IGs won't exist any more
... just extend charter... gives us some some time to think about it
... you guys what do you think, is it relevant

kcoyle: this is complicated. i feel that we are today as an IG is ...
... individuals and i don't know to what extent people feel they are representing their organistation
... if we become a CG we have to have a closer connection to library community

<jodi> kcoyle: do you mean that the W3C isn't close enough to the library world?

kcoyle: how does the w3c library community group interact with library community?

emma: probably added value of new group would be to create a community taht would go beyond libraries and include archives and museums...

<dvila> +1 to add archives and museums

<GordonD> +1 for a, l, m community group

emma: maybe there are other organisations that can make that bridge...
... w3c has web focus, linked data but web in general that's why interesting to have CG within W3C

kcoyle: been an interesting group
... concern is library community already has foci...
... places where its community interacts
... so how does this interact with those?
... how do we integrate these activities with ongoing ones

emma: key question for community

edsu: i think that's a good question to ask
... came to mind was this report that harry is interested in seeing
... when it gets published ... for this IG to communicate outwards... to other foci...
... communities of people that go to these things... maybe it pops up on their radar...
... people in this IG are active in other communities...
... area where we could bridge different communities and do a bit more cross-pollination
... emma was saying libraries and museums and archives could share a bit more with a web focus
... it could work
... i'm glad tom brought up what he did
... depending how they spin the legal side of it it could be difficult
... not just for me but for anybody i imagine that has to sign something that says they're speaking for their institution

emma: actually you as LOC are more representing your institution than an invited expert

edsu: i guess you're right... but idea of these CGs are to lower the bar for non-member
... kcoyle would it be harder for you?

kcoyle: not for me but i could see that it would be for members of larger institutions that aren't members already

edsu: nice thing about w3c members is that it's already done... but people who aren't members... going to have to ... go through the legal process...
... to just participate...

<edsu> +1 to that

kcoyle: another comment i have is if we move to a CG where we might actually be a development.. .then we have to get more library vendors involved

<dvila> good point

<jodi> +1 for involving library vendors

edsu: easier for them... wouldn't have to commit to being memebers

<edsu> scribenick: edsu

ww: it seems like signing these things towards the end of a lifecycle of a bit of work, isn't that a bit dangerous...if a a business tries to sneak some stuff into some work and then decides not to sign

kcoyle: it does happen

<ww> kcoyle: something having to do with ebooks...

<scribe> scribenick: ww

<antoine> maybe worth forwarding that point to W3C!

<edsu> antoine: agreed

emma: anyone wanting to make another comment? if not... suggestion would be those of you who are attending the LODLAM summit in june maybe you can discuss this with opeople at summit an at other institutions...
... probably we need other people joining if we want to be a CG

antoine: just a quick not... karen and william's point interesting... maybe send an email... would not expect this to happen but maybe it could be interesting

emma: other business?

tbaker: suggest that on next call we want to assign reviewers for various sections
... antuo emma you agree with that? if you do that it would be good if groups working on particular sections could get them into a shape where they could go out for review...
... not final shape, im sure we'll have additional discussion, that's why we are extending the charter... but in shape where we could assign reviewers next week

<kai> sorry, have to leave timely. bye :-)

<scribe> ACTION: section owners try to be ready for reviewers next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/05/12-lld-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> ACTION: chairs to send an email on the list to ask people to be ready [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/05/12-lld-minutes.html#action02]

antoine: if something is ready before, circulate on list
... kim asks that when we are ready we send him an email

emma: thank you everyone

<antoine> s/send an a email/chairs to send an email

<dvila> thank you everyone

<jodi> tbaker: yup

<GordonD> Tom: we do

AJDOURNED

<jneubert> bye

<jodi> tbaker: be back in 2 min