<josema> trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Date: 01 April 2009

<dmcallis> dmcallis == DaveMcAllister, Adobe (magic decoder ring)

<josema> scribe: Daniel

<josema> scribeNick: Daniel_Bennett

Any new Members around? Intros.

Dave: Hello from Adobe (DaveMcAllister)

Ken: Hi to group

<josema> [dave leads standards work at Adobe]

Group Note Issues

Kevin: talking about comments on group notes
... issue of ensuring that notes can be read by non-technical readers
... we still have a ways to go on changing text to easier to understand by non-techs

Jose: I will put a link on IRC of the tracker that we can use to take in comments/edits
... I have been taking some good comments from outside and use the tracker
.... trying to find a balance on how to handle input.: I can still type some

<josema> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/issues/open

Kevin: Has a comment for Daniel about format of his section

Jose: had comment that Daniel's section should reflect overall outline

Daniel: says I know and will change the document accordingly

<john> Sorry I'm late - just joined the call

Kevin: thinks that use cases and more solutions should be added

Daniel: I agree

John: Hi

Jose: how should we handle the comment period by April 26
... how to handle editing while comments are coming in?

Daniel: It will get complicated if we don't hold off on editing.

Kevin: I agree that it will be hard to account for changes made while edits are coming out.

<dmcallis> I agree. We should consider them (and potential resolutions) but leave the document static till the open date ends

Kevin: This may be a problem for dates, but still a problem to keep editing.

John: I agree.

Kevin: If we try to get to everything done by date that may not be helpful for the standards.

Jose: Process wise for W3C we need to either ask for a delay or we need to finish by the date.

Kevin: I would like to have effort to finish the charter in time. Delay only if must.
...trying to keep a lot happening while respecting the process.

Jose: laughs (you know I have to play the conscience role, devil's advocate, whatever you call it in English)

<john> devils advocate?

Jose: my question is answered. first wait for comments then work on editing.
... we need a call for additional authors.
... not written in stone who the authors are, please, please, please volunteer
... especially new members

<dmcallis> will review the sections to see if I can add value as author

Kevin: You did put out a call before
... I talked with Larry Masinter at Adobe about some of the sections

Kevin: If we target the 15th for new material would that be a good date?

John: agrees

Kevin: is that reasonable for the authors?

<josema> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-egov-improving-20090310/

Jose: not done sections are- Multi-channel Deliver and Long term data mgnt.
... I can not do much of the Multi-Channel Delivery so still looking for someone, Long Term Data was going to be with Chris

Kevin: Chris has an outline

Jose: Chris told me at F2F that it is almost done

Kevin: I will talk to him tomorrow.

Jose: Just publish or work on stuff as soon as possible
... use the wiki

<josema> editor's draft: http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/Group/docs/note

Joe: asks for link to editable for editing

<josema> I personally would prefer to have something on http://www.w3.org/Mobile/ at least

Joe: what about just dropping Multi Channel or what is that?

Kevin: We will try and get this dealing with social, etc. included

Joe: just say mobile? and focus on interop

<dmcallis> multi channel == mobile, MID, desktop, living room (TV)

<dmcallis> major impact on data viewing structure

<josema> right Dave, issue is a)we don't have expertise in Group to talk about all of that b)we decided at the F2F that Mobile was enough for now

Joe: should we stay on basics?

<josema> are you volunteering? :)

Owen: Obama is telling US agencies to keep it simple and raw.

Kevin: keep context out there, but we are trying to bring in all countries.

<dmcallis> and the US is behind in the multi channel space

Daniel: shouldn't we deal with syndication, Twitter, Facebook for Multi Channel

Kevin: we should formulate the base.
... we should cite the standards.

<josema> +1 to Owen!

<josema> on two way street with socmed sites

Daniel: shouldn't we address the standards as a way of explaining how to deal with social media.

Owen: Social Media should work on using standards so that govt can participate.

Dave: Social Media is experimenting so no standards should apply at beginning

Owen: important for govt. should not participate with non-standards

Joe: what about syndication

Dave: explains the mechanism.

<josema> GSA signs deals for agencies to use social networking sites

<josema> remember also that social media incubator at W3C is coming and we'll coordinate with them

Rachel: wanted to let you know that the folks in govt trenches are dealing with legal issues
... TOS issues
... it takes govt a while to meet legal concerns first
... we are working on it

Kevin: it took Library of Congress 9 months to deal with Flickr because of legal issues, technical ones were done in a week

<dmcallis> The mechanism for most feeds to twitter et.al. is a specific API between the feed (text) to twitter. There are commercial sites (such as TweetLater) that offer these serviices.

Rachel: social media issues published.

<dmcallis> The concern is where to draw the line of social media sites. They appear often, offer new capabilities

Daniel: shouldn't that be posted as a USE CASE for the eGov group

<josema> clearly, we aim for data-in data-out

Ken: May be the committee should address the broader issues
... build the framework that government operates under.

<Owen> I need to leave at 10:00 to go to a meeting with folks at the U.S. Courts to discuss records management issues.

<Owen> I hope someone can compile a summary report from the F2F, particularly a listing of follow-up action items, if any.

Rachel: govts need to be seen where people are

<dmcallis> do we need to express such data (video) as a recommended standard? encoders/decoders?

Rachel: Social Media folks have been accommodating

<Owen> With respect to the way forward, it seems to me that it would be best to focus on one or two objectives that we can accomplish fairly quickly and well. However, I suspect the reality is that relatively few of us want to work on the same objectives. If not, I suppose the best we can do is take whatever any of us may be willing and able to contribute.

<dmcallis> did we arrive at the definition of this section ? Multi-channel == socila media?

<josema> thanks Owen, I'll make sure to bring this up

Ken: should talk about other forms of reaching out to placing ads, etc.

<Owen> Dave, if you're not already aware of StratML and the PDF form we have used to convert many strategic plans to StratML format, I'd like to exchange E-mail with you about it. My address is owen@ambur.net

<dmcallis> sure: dmcallis@adobe.com

<josema> [Owen leaves call]

Daniel: suggests breaking up Multi channel should be broken into data standards versus social policy

Joe and Ken:Twitter is both syndication and online chat

Joe: Should govt pick winners?

Ken: future of public service announcements should be discussed

<dmcallis> concern on the aggregator. as this new media evolves, many data types in play, many channels. twitter is simple, video is harder. converstaions bring own channels

Daniel:though putting out multiple forms of information needs to be addressed in paper.
...this discussion points out that the discussion needs to be reflected in Group Note.

<dmcallis> agreed. this needs to be addressed, perhaps as best practices rather than standards

Kevin: it takes a bit of work to participate with outside media.

Ken: there is no one place to help promote information

<dmcallis> portal approach ++ social broadcast?

<josema> +1, I think this Group's work is way more Best Practices than Standards and that we should coordinate with the other Groups doing technical work as appropriate

<kevin> Jose, agree that is a good approach

Ken: more efforts to get info out

<josema> there you have it, we _only_ need to choose the topics ;)

<dmcallis> apologies. will need to drop off early today

thanks Dave for participating

<daniel> can we come to a decision on this?

John: I suggest creating a London Gazzette for U.S.

[Ken and Rachel: discussion of how to publish data more openly]

<kevin> ok will do

<josema> no matter what we start to discuss (remember: it was multi-channel) we end up discussing OGD

<josema> in the end it's all about the data!

Kevin: lets bring this to conclusion

Ken:how to decrease burden of publishing on both the govt and outside?

<john> good discussion!

<josema> +1 to Kevin

<josema> no time to do that in a month but we should consider it as year 2 work

Kevin: We need to add in this

F2F2 Meeting debrief and actions

<josema> W3C Technology Survey

Kevin: we dealt in ways with F2F, mentioned the TechSurvey
... spoke to data.gov about what would be helpful
... more specifics on incorporating these efforts

[Kevin and Jose: discuss about summary doc]

Kevin: asks folks from the F2F to look summary over

<josema> Summary Report

Kevin: Please look at summary
... I will be at The World Bank meeting on April, 17th

<josema> all kudos on Tech Survey should go to my colleague Eric Prud'hommeaux (W3C), I just made a couple comments

Kevin: from meeting with Beth, we now do have attendee list
... thanks to all at F2F

<john> +1 kevin's thanks

Jose: wants to finish the Multi Channel and we need to give Apr. 15th deadline on this.
... and the other section too

<josema> RESOLUTION: content for Multi-Channel and Long Term to be provided by April 15th

Joe: should govt distribution be part of Multi Channel

<daniel> seconds the resolution

<josema> ACTION: Chris to provide content for long term due 2009-04-15 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-egov-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Chris

Daniel:Dave seemed to be interested in data standards for Multi Channel

Kevin: we have hashed out this

Ken: willing to write it up

Kevin: lets get just a paragraph done to encapsulate this discussion re: Multi

<josema> ACTION: Ken to summarize approach to Multi Channel [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-egov-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-51 - Summarize approach to Multi Channel [on Ken Fischer - due 2009-04-08].

Ken: agrees to put that paragraph

2nd Charter and way forward

<josema> [briefly]

Kevin: lets try to define what we are looking at

Jose: will be with us as his contract continued to end of year

<daniel> yeah!

Jose: there is a process for W3C to deal with charter, we need to focus on year 2 issues

<john> so no implications asking for an extension of a month?

Kevin: no implications if we need the time.

<josema> AFAIR, shouldn't be any difficult; IIRC extensions are approved by W3M

What's going on out there?

Kevin: did an interview with GCN
... Karen is working on more publicity
... getting more members
... any more issues?

John: Cloud computing is not mentioned
... perhaps it should be addressed

Kevin: WSJ article last week talking about this

<john> +1 josema

<john> good call, thanks everyone

Jose: expecting more conversation with charter next
... week

Kevin: adjourns

[ADJOURNED]