<BenG> ScribeNick: BenG
topic 3 : more clarity around task forces and deliverables
topic 4 : lists and teleconferences
topic 5 : chairs
Topic 1 : One united incubator group or several
Harry has sent an email
scribe: with results of the web poll
<claudio> +39.011.aadd is claudio
christine: agreement on 1 unifed XG ?
harry: question not asked
christine: Is there a general agreement with the fact there is one XG and several TFs ?
<DKA> +1 to multiple task forces, multiple task forces
harry: TFs are a 50/50 so should be debated
TFs: is 16 for, 15 against, 8 don't care
?? : TF should be considered depending on the work that turns up
<hhalpin_> Results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/SocialWebXGCharter/results
scribe: a little too early to debate
... they are a way of doing things, not a goal per se
danbri: (can't hear)
harry: Tfs should come after the discussion on deliverables
DKA (? <> support TFs
scribe: it's nice to have people from various areas talking to each other
<davide> hi everyone, I cannot join the telcon; network problems here :(
<danbri> i was trying to summarise my point in IRC, not sure if it got thru:
<danbri> [22:19] danbri: 1. tfs are inevitable in a colalborative environment
<danbri> [22:19] danbri: - so we have princeiples for their being transparent, documented
<danbri> [22:20] danbri: 2. we can't anticipate all collaborations; we shouldn't enumerate all TFs in a charter
<danbri> [22:20] danbri: that's it
<FabGandon> davide: if it can help, The Zakim bridge numbers are +1.617.761.6200, +33.4.89.06.34.99 and +44.117.370.6152.
<hhalpin_> Earlier Draft:
christine: check the charter on page :
<hhalpin_> DanBri's new beginning text:
<Zakim> danbri, you wanted to speak in favour of informal taskforces
<Zakim> hhalpin_, you wanted to speak on task forces
scribe: this is what we should focus on, charter matters less.
<hhalpin_> +1 renato
<danbri> renato, my proposal is for the only 100%-promised deliverable to be a Final Report, but for other documents and artifacts to be options
<danbri> I really hope we write more stuff, ... and use cases + privacy/policy would be my preferred priorities (or the things i think most likely to actually get done)
<hhalpin_> What I phrase should be "Also, a number of deliverables _could_ be produced, although this work may also be subsumed into the final report."
harry: this is a project management issue
... in general XGs produce a single report
... this XG has many people, it makes sense to propose several report, but we should minimize the proposed number of deliverables
... most WGs do not have that many delivrables !
Tim: why don't we plan something very short
... just work on one document that would be critical, rest would be done in a WG
<hhalpin_> Tim, a good idea, but I have never seen an XG or WG run for less than a year, even for a single final report.
Tim: a final report
<Zakim> DKA, you wanted to note that the XG is a farily new animal so not to get caught up in what other XGs have and haven't done.
Tim: then to become a WG to work on a rec (hopefully)
<danbri_> [[ Each XG will end:
<danbri_> * Upon completion of the work in eyes of the XG, whether deemed successful or not.
<danbri_> * Upon reaching the end of the chartered duration, which is a maximum of one year from the start of the XG.
<danbri_> so realistically it will be around a year, maybe finish a bit quickly, maybe slightly run over
christine: difficult to have people attracted, unless they are working on a portion of the report they care about
<danbri_> (we can always recharter a related successor XG if a WG is deemed premature, or migrate to Interest Group status too)
<hhalpin_> So, to get into queue you type "q+"
<AlbertoSanJose> My 2 cents: Social Web is so new, so start to work and see what happens
Doloros: should not be focused just on best practices
<hhalpin_> We could imagine a series of WGs coming out of these XGs.
<hhalpin_> So, is that a proposal for doing use-cases first, then have deliverables come out?
dolores: need to have different scenarios for different uses cases, and deliverables should come out of that.
<hhalpin_> we could rename s/best pratices/reports
<danbri_> I agree... nobody in the industry knows what is best yet, overall
<hhalpin_> Also, if you feel you have a minor point but don't wish to speak, feel free to type it into IRC.
Tim: the changes in the take four were on use cases and best practices. These documents could be parts of the final report.
<hhalpin_> I would be happy to cut everything out of charter except final report.
Tim: charter has moved fast
renato: compare to emergency information XG : broad area
... was going to make 3 deliverables :
state of the art
(missed the middle one?)
scribe: we must have at least 3 deliverables that are central to this area
<hhalpin_> The reason I used "best practices" was to talk about core areas/topics, which might be task forces:
<hhalpin_> 1 <contextual data and mobile
<danbri> i like harry's compromise - allows these themes to be delivered as parts of the final report or separately
<hhalpin_> 2 <Architecture and data interoperability
<hhalpin_> We can even just say "We will address these areas"
renato: just take 3 bullet points and then start discussion
<hhalpin_> Or "high-level?"
<miquel> Would merging into a single deliverable decrease the visibility of the topics within?
<bblfish> phew! Got in
renato: would also let people participate in several subjects
<AlexPassant> what about privacy/trust and PLING ?
<hhalpin_> I am not too attached to any of the titles of http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebTakeFour
<hhalpin_> But am not sure what kinds of titles are wanted.
renato: does anyone want to stick with detailled deliverables ?
<danbri_> i'd prefer "recommendations" rather than "best practices" ...
<hhalpin_> That works for me.
DKA: join 2, 4, 5 (?)
<danbri_> "best" is tough in an evolving field, and the recommendations might be things like "opensocial should use ARIA for accessibility"...
christine: 1 <use cases 2) scenarios 3) final report
<hhalpin_> I heard
<hhalpin_> 1 <use-cases 2) mapping 3) final report
<danbri_> i'd put use cases and scenarios together...
scenarii would include several use cases (as far as I gathered)
<danbri_> or at least, i don't understand how the distinction be made
<AlexPassant> 1 <use-cases /scenarios 2) requirements / mappings 3) report
scribe: work can be taken later in the WG step
<hhalpin_> "Mapping"->"Social Data and Semantics"
christine: mapping = industry mappings
<bblfish> architetural values?
harry: mappings would be mappings between various standards (such as openID)
... final report must be high level so that any journalist can read it
<cperey> mapping who is doing what for contextual data?
<hhalpin_> Mappings between industry, the final report might be different than interoperability/distributed architecture stuff, which might be too "low-level" for a high level final report.
(can't hear speaker very well)
<hhalpin_> I think industry mappings are important, in fact, very much so, so maybe these should be upfront in final report.
<cperey> mapping who is doing what on payments?
renato: should we split high level and low level into several deliverables ?
<hhalpin_> people will also probably have different specialities - some people are mostly coders who will look at low-level tech details, other people will focus on high level industry overview.
Tim (? <> need for the low level deliverables to NOT extend the life time of the XG too long
<AlbertoSanJose> hhalpin +1 to that
<danbri> agreed - bigger jobs have to happen elsewhere
<hhalpin_> We could start using proposal system with formal consensus.
<hhalpin_> I.e. you type:
<hhalpin_> PROPOSAL: What you want an answer on.
<hhalpin_> Why don't in the charter we just say "We will cover these areas"
<hhalpin_> "and these may become multiple deliverables"
christine: vote on number of deliverables ?
<danbri> if we pull out any one thing beyond a Final Report, i'd go for scenarios / use cases ...
<danbri> ... and these could live quite naturally in the wiki, evolve over time
<renato> three deliverabes...
<AlexPassant> 1 <use-cases /scenarios 2) requirements / mappings 3) report
<hhalpin_> Sounds good to me.
<danbri> can you briefly remind us what "mappings" amounts to? schema stuff?
<tpa> works for me
danbri: its who is doing what
<renato> high-level: industry activities
<renato> ...privacy etc
<miquel> what parts of the scenarios are covered by whic hexisting technologies <-mappings ?
<renato> low-level: protocold etc
<danbri> ...and yes, that naturally shades into technical collab on apis and schemas
<danbri> I am happy leaving those detailed technical analyses to external collaborations which simply report to the group from time to time
harry: low level can be usefull for guarding future work, and help shape W3C's objectives
<danbri> but fine to publish thru the xg too. i have no strong pref.
harry: need to have tech work done in the future
dolores: problems that arise when merging the social web and the semantic web ?
<hhalpin_> Well, obviously there are some Semantic Web people here.
dolores: should be delt with in point 3
<danbri> point 3 = 3rd deliverable?
<AlexPassant> danbri: some of us already works on tech appraoches, we may include that in the final report of the 2nd document without too many XG efforts
<miquel> If we don't have Oauth and openid on the title, why give so much prominence so semantinc web? just examples of course
<hhalpin_> The current charter mentions OpenID/OAuth about twice as many times as Semantic Web.
harry is summing up the documents he feels necessary
<hhalpin_> 3 <mappings (high-level and low-level)
<hhalpin_> Or should we drop low-level?
<DKA> +1 on final report, +1 on use cases, +1 on industry mappings, +1 on low level (ref: task forces)
<hhalpin_> We can just be "vague" on nature of mappings.
<tpa> works for me
<DKA> [I also think there is a role for "best practices" - which seems to be similar to what others are calling "low level mapping"]
<tpa> so can we or should we shorten the lifespan of the XG?
scribe: but don't foget best practices : look at current industry practices
<hhalpin_> it seems consensus is word "best practices" should be dropped, or at least adjective "best" from charter
<tpa> we went from 15 deliverables to 3
<danbri_> "current industry practice ... existing tech, stds, ... where they are being put to use, ... what works in reality ..."
<danbri_> ..."can be some best practice brought to light"
<hhalpin_> I think it is likely once we get report done, if we get multiple WGs, there will be 15+ deliverables :)
<tpa> would it work to advance our expected end date?
<renato> best practice = current practice
<tpa> is that realistic?
<bblfish> explaining +/- for current practices given architectural values for distributed social networks
<bblfish> would be interesting
<hhalpin_> We need some concrete decisions for the charter.
<danbri_> what's left to decide?
<hhalpin_> Re meeting times
<CaptSolo> "... is devoted to Social Web topics. These include describing and identifying people, groups and organizations in extensible and privacy respecting ways."
<hhalpin_> 1 or multiple mailing list
<danbri_> re mailing lists, telecons, etc...
<AlbertoSanJose> Consider finding "patterns", as they could lead easily to code to protocols
<libby> apologies, I have to go
<danbri_> 1 group, 1 main list... and everything around it fades into non-xg stuff ... .... but we can all use email@example.com ... or other groups lists too
Renato: can discuss this on first call
<CaptSolo> people and social networks are just one aspect of the social web
<CaptSolo> text of http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebTakeFour is mostly about describing social networks
Tim: can we advance the end date of the XG ?
<hhalpin_> In my experience, 3 would take about a year. Open standards take time.
<hhalpin_> If we finish early, we can end charter early.
<CaptSolo> while an important (and a large <part of the social web is user-generated content
harry: it is possible to close early
<tpa> but deadlines help :)
<CaptSolo> and everything that is around content (tags, ...)
<renato> one year is fine
<hhalpin_> Capt Solo: Please make edits direct to wiki.
<hhalpin_> I am sure there is not much of objection over adding user-generated content.
<hhalpin_> but if anyone has anything, they can also edit.
<hhalpin_> Not yet.
christine: talk about editors and include them in the charter ?
main answer : no
<hhalpin_> Now, there are things are things: editors.
christine: chair nomination
<hhalpin_> are not needed.
<hhalpin_> but we need to know, weekly/biweekly telecons.
<CaptSolo> hhalpin_: thanks
<hhalpin_> Current line in charter says "Since some of this work may require separate teleconference time, task forces may be used in order to focus activity on specific achievable goals."
<CaptSolo> however, before editing, i need to get more context (literally jumped in here after seeing mention of the telcon on #swig). don't want to do edits in haste.
<CaptSolo> if someone more familiar with the text adds user-generated content where it fits, that'd be great
harry: TFs would requiere specific telecons (this is in charter)
<CaptSolo> in either case, i'll explore it more and do edits if needed
harry: 40 people on a call is not productive
... all this needn't be detailled in the charter
<danbri_> CaptSolo, I don't think SocialWebTake4 is mostly about describing social nets ... there's opensocial, oauth, openid, emphasis on mobileweb meets widget platforms, accessibility, ...
<hhalpin_> does that address the concern miguel?
<hhalpin_> telcon: weekly/biweekly/monthly?
harry: weekly or bi-weekly / monthly ?
<DKA> Suggest we decide on chairs first and worry about telecons off-line.
christine: have one a month but can have them more often if we want ?
<bblfish> weekly slot sounds good
<bblfish> there's a lot there
<AlbertoSanJose> telcons: biweekly
<danbri_> ...but to have it available
<danbri_> the charter notes that eg microformats people are 100% wiki + email ...
<DKA> [personally I support bi-weekly]
<danbri_> ...so if we are gonna work with them, we need to adapt to their work style
<DKA> [but spinning off task forces will also impact this]
<danbri_> i dont think discussing content on the call will be productive, ... phone call mostly just to chase people
<CaptSolo> danbri_: one could reformulate it to "anything but content". to me, content people create is the largest part of the social web.
<bblfish> perhaps start off biweekly?
renato: supporting biweekly
<bblfish> just to get things settled
<CaptSolo> danbri_: important enough to be described.
<hhalpin_> i am a bit confused re weekly/biweekly/monthly.
<danbri_> biweekly ok by me
<danbri_> how about audio biweekly, but editors etc keep the alternate week's slot assigned to the XG, for email/IRC/wiki collaboration
<renato> ACTION: define the three deliverables
<hhalpin_> We could say "weekly"
<bblfish> sounds good
<danbri_> nobody will force us to meet weekly
<renato> renato....dropped out...redialling now
<danbri_> we could check in, talk for 10 mins, and return to our inbox
<AlbertoSanJose> +1 bblfish
concensus on reserving weekly
christine: does the w3c XG process stipulate that a chair must be a w3c member
<danbri_> hmm not sure
<danbri_> i think invited experts have chaired in the past
harry: suppose it is not a requierement
<renato> renato is back
<danbri_> but typically that's been when someone was a chair already and their employment situation changed out under them
<hhalpin_> I'm pretty sure.
<hhalpin_> However, with XGs almost anyone can become an Invited Expert.
<renato> question: shouls all members of the XG be invited experts?
DKA: to nominate himself as co-chair
... vodafone interested in taking a strong role in the gruop
renato: chairs should have experience
... in knowing w3c process
christine: would like someone from industry as a co chair
<miquel> makes sense
harry: happy to chair or not, one of the rules of the chair is to know w3c process, scope that everything is on time
... chair must say what is out of scope, keep the group on tracks
... know w3c tools
... also be an ambassador to the outside world
... in favor of DanBri
<bblfish> +1 for DanBri
harry: nice to have someone neutral
<miquel> how can we go about a vote?
renato: possible to have chairs for seperate areas
<hhalpin_> What names weren't on the list?
<hhalpin_> I added Claudio and Tim.
<hhalpin_> Ah, yes.
<hhalpin_> My feeling is Dan Applequist, DanBri, and myself.
christine: do not want 2 people from SW chairing
<hhalpin_> I'd like to directly object to "SemWeb" characterization.
<danbri> woah woah, ... "2 people from semweb backgrounds" is not an acceptable position
<DKA> [for those who don't know me, BTW, I have been involved with W3C as A.C. member for Vodafone since 2004 (and for another co. briefly in 2001). Also I have chaired Mobile Web Best Practices wg since 2005 - which has delivered a couple Recs now. I also helped to put together the Mobile Web Initiative in W3C. Finally I am leading a program in Vodafone R&D around social web topics so this is pretty core to my work right now.]
<miquel> danbri: your w3c page states I'm working on RDF and Semantic Web technology at W3C.
<danbri> Daniel A. is also semweb-curious, and I would object strongly to your excluding him if he were deemed semwebish
<hhalpin_> Dan Brickley worked on FOAF, which is a very 2001 effort.
<hhalpin_> on interoperable social networks.
<DKA> Also - if it's between me and Dan Brickley I would vote for Dan Brickley. :)
<danbri> So, I agree that this isn't a semweb-only group. The charter i drafted barely mentioned semweb. It did mention XMPP, OAuth, OpenID, OpenSocial, PortableContacts, Accessibility/ARIA, Widget platforms, ... areas with which I'm very well connected.
<danbri> I'm willing to not chair for many reasons
harry: difference between official background, what you are most known for, and who you work for
<danbri> but not chairing because I'm a semwebber is ridiculous and offensive.
<danbri> and I'd be happy for DKA to do it, ... or for DKA/Harry
<miquel> danbri, it's not about you or hhalpin, it's about diversity in the chairs
harry: everyone is trying to work on this together, some technologies will or will not be known
<cperey> thank you, miguel
<danbri> diversity is about bringing in reps from all parts of the socialweb landscape ...
<hhalpin_> Well, you should vote:
<bblfish> yes true hhalpin has been very active in putting this together, and danbri has been very open to non semweb tools, such as openid, oauth, etc...
<hhalpin_> Daniel Applequist.
<hhalpin_> Industry bit.
<tpa> I'm ready and willing to
<hhalpin_> Clearly fulfills outside ambadssaordship will.
<DKA> ScribeNick: tpa
<hhalpin_> It is unsual, it is possible.
harry: 3 chairs maybe possible
<danbri_> let's treat Harry's role as that which would be a W3C Staff Contact's role, if this were a WG...
<hhalpin_> Yes, I will functionally perform role of staff contact.
<danbri_> ren, i'm 1000% committed to social web interop ...
<danbri_> ...but i am aware that i have been out of the loop these past few months ....
<danbri_> ... so i'm trying to be polite
<hhalpin_> Chairing is a thankless task.
<danbri_> i would love to co-chair the group
??: chairing the group is a lot of administrative duties
<danbri_> (ren, i know)
<hhalpin_> That's why I think Daniel Applequist would be a good third chair.
<FabGandon> +1 for the three chairs : Dan A, Dan B, Harry
<danbri_> (i'm being englishly awkward about putting myself fwd, ok? :)
<AlbertoSanJose> +1 for 3 chairs
<DKA> +1 to danbri as a co-chair
<cperey> +1 for 3 chairs
<miquel> 3's a crowd...
<danbri_> how about Harry, DanA and myself have a chat in the next week and get back to the group with a decision on whether we think we can work together productively?
<DKA> (3 muskateers?)
<danbri_> +1 for 3 chairs
<hhalpin_> 3 is bit of a crowd.
<danbri_> (another danc, heavens...)
<danbri_> lets define some clear roles
<hhalpin_> but then I will perform staff contact role functionally.
<FabGandon> three chairs also allows us to have different chairs at weekly telecon
??: proposes Dan A, Dan B and Harry
<danbri_> harry: process / deliverables / chasing
<danbri_> danbri: bridging to other w3c and web groups
christine: this is the end of the agenda
<danbri_> dan a: mobile orientation?
<bblfish> I don't want to chair
christine: next steps?
<CaptSolo> +1 for 3 chairs
<hhalpin_> Let's say push out new charter tomorrow reflecting the consensus.
<hhalpin_> Give people till Monday to look at it.
<DKA> +1 to closing; suggest 3 chairs collaborate on new charter
<hhalpin_> Then Mon evening, shoot the charter out.
harry: push out new charter tomorrow, let people until Monday for feedback
<hhalpin_> To W3C Team.
<renato> ACTION: new chairs put out new charter (asap)
<hhalpin_> And then we should hopefully by April 1st at latest.
<miquel> can we define a protocol to vote with less discussion on the topics we've discussed now?
<hhalpin_> Voting would be a good idea.
<danbri_> yes let's!
<hhalpin_> Do you want to take a formal vote miguel? If so, just say:
<hhalpin_> PROPOSAL: My Question or statement.
<danbri_> so what was resolved, for the minutes?
miquel: when do we vote?
<hhalpin_> We can go over W3C Process.
<hhalpin_> now if you want.
<hhalpin_> In general, you can either or telecon lists.
<hhalpin_> Usually, only the telecons are binding.
<hhalpin_> Then you say, let's a have a vote/consensus:
<hhalpin_> 1 <Yes
<hhalpin_> 4 <Abstain.
<DKA> [but we will have to "find our way"]
<hhalpin_> PROPOSAL: Voting on chair.
<danbri_> [i prefer consensus and straw polls ... voting is last resort]
<hhalpin_> We could take another Web- Questionnaire.
<danbri_> another thing you often here in WGs is "can you live with?" or "are there any objections?"
??: we don't need to vote on everything
<hhalpin_> So, we want to reach consensus on everything.
scribe: only vote when there is no consensus, objections, etc.
<hhalpin_> In general, yes.
<hhalpin_> Resorting to vote only when consensus seems unable to be reached.
<danbri_> well, right now we just a bunch of people trying to create a new group
<danbri_> so there is no formal consensus binding us
<danbri_> even XGs are pretty informal
<hhalpin_> "PROPOSAL: XXXX"
<hhalpin_> otherwise, since there's no objection.
<danbri_> we can invent ways of working that suit us, but doing it W3C style will help with fitting into the wider W3C scene, progression to WG status, etc
<hhalpin_> Some groups have basically no telecons - HTML5 :)
<miquel> that's fine, that's fine
<bblfish> from IETF atom group, mailing list votes get very confusing, because there are so many emails that end up in the box
renato: which w3c members would be sponsors?
<DKA> Vodafone will be a sponsor [spoken also as AC member]
<FabGandon> INRIA would be supporting that XG
<danbri_> re sponsors, I am checking with VU Uni Amsterdam (where I work half-time). I expect VU to support the charter, and hope I can have time to chase that.
renato: companies need to be aware of whether or not they'll be asked before the fact
... who would be willing to sponsor the XG?
<DKA> We will also be happy to chair a f2f meeting this year in London or Dusseldorf.
<hhalpin_> University of Edinburgh
<bblfish> (( If needed Sun Microsystems, but I am very overworked ))
<hhalpin_> We also have a huge list from.
<danbri_> I think Uni Bristol / ILRT might be interested, i can poke
<AlexPassant> DERI will support as well
<CaptSolo> DERI would be supporting the XG
<hhalpin_> Adding SUN would be good if Eduardo agrees.
<CaptSolo> AlexPassant :)
<danbri_> bblfish, Sun would be great. And good to show diverse industry support, not just university
<danbri_> Asemantics SRL in Italy too
<danbri_> yes what cperey says, ... showing lots is good
<hhalpin_> We will eventually probably making a gambit to turn this into one or more WGs, so the stronger the initiating members the better.
<danbri_> I can ask BBC too, they are sometimes slow moving but doing a lot in this area
<hhalpin_> But we can set a week deadline for getting in touch with AC reps.
christine: having more than the minimum of sponsors is helpful in showing the W3C this effort is serious and gather a lot of support from diverse sources
<DKA> thanks all!
<hhalpin_> Thanks Christine!
christine: thanks everybody for being on this call
... move to adjourn
<hhalpin_> Also, note that we will not list non-W3C members on charter member sponsorship :(
<danbri_> thanks christine!
<FabGandon> bonne nuit
<miquel> yeap, thanks
<hhalpin_> Sorry, that's just bureaucracy.
<cperey> htank you!
<miquel> Cristine, special thanks, good job :)
<AlexPassant> thanks cperey and all
<hhalpin_> But they will be listed separately.
<hhalpin_> So that all endorsers are known.
<cperey> my pleasure
<hhalpin_> This helps the group appear larger.
<AlbertoSanJose> Thanks all!