Agenda adjustments and next meetings

John: Is everyone happy with the agenda today?

All: Yes

Charter sent to AC

John: The proposed Charter was sent to the Advisory Committee at W3C

John: Josema, can you give an update?

Jose: According to W3C process, charter has been submitted to Advisory Committee and must remain with them 4 weeks. It was delayed because of my departure, etc. It has been submitted and they have until the 28th of September to review and approve it.
... member representatives can make comments, each representative decides who can see comments submitted. For those of you who work for W3C member orgs, ask your AC rep to review and support it. The more reviewers who have comments the better.
... the mailing list is on public announcements and individuals can also submit comments.
... before the charter went to the AC there were some changes. I made the changed version available a couple of days ago.

<josema> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2009Aug/0027

Jose: not many changes, removal of duplicate content, etc. Changed length of charter from 2 years to 1. Keeping fingers crossed to have as many good reviews as possible

John: For those of us who are AC reps, should we be actively supporting the charter? Is that worthwhile?

ACTION: John - Support and reach out to other AC reps to encourage support of eGov Charter

Jose: Yes, especially since you can decide to keep comments within small group or make public.

Data.gov.* memo

John: Can you speak to this Daniel?

Daniel: I received some comments leading to some changes. Owen's suggestions have not yet been incorporated, should be in the bibliography, which will be addressed by the ETF. I welcome people from the group to read through and comment.

John: What issues were raised?

Daniel: Clarity at the start about what the memo is about.
... various suggestions for clean up to language, need for explicit references, examples.

John: No substantial differences of view?

Daniel: Not that I saw. I incorporated some of the comments from the last call.

<hughb> I have been away a few weeks - wondering why it moved to Google Docs (off wiki)

Daniel: changed the title of the section

Rachel: For the purposes of the ETF I want to make sure that all comments that came in over the list have been incorporated and our job will be specifically to clear up language.

Daniel: There were requests for examples and some bibliography issues

Rachel: So is it ready for us to take over? Is Friday the deadline for this?

Daniel: Before September 9th

Rachel: I'll shoot for getting it in by Friday.

ACTION: Rachel - Within ETF, draft next version of dat.gov.* memo, focusing on content

<Zakim> josema, you wanted to talk about deadlines, working draft, formatting

Daniel: I tried to make it as readable as possible.

Jose: There is a question of how to publish the memo, we wanted to publish before next week's summit. To publicize our work, we have been talking to W3C about that. Asking about the best way to publish this memo.
... given that many of us are still learning about how to do publication in w3c framework, they have suggested that we publish as a Working Draft

<hughb> I expect it would be quite tweakable

Jose: This memo then should be in the same format as the previous WD we published.
... that means it must be in w3c format, etc

Rachel: So we should get it done quickly?

Jose: It is a good milestone and we should get it done if we can by that time, but to be mindful of the needed format. I am happy to help.

Rachel: I will do the content and turn it over to someone else for the formatting.
... will let you know if I can not find someone to format.

Hughb: I may be able to help

ACTION: Hugh - help with formatting dat.gov.* memo to meet W3C fomatting requirements

John: Thanks Daniel, Hugh and Rachel. I think the document has come along quite well

Sandro: Thinking through logisitics of publication by Tuesday. The difference between Working Draft and Note is something to address.

...we need to consider the question of whether Note carries more weight? and we need a title that is short.

<josema> I propose data-gov-memo or data-gov-star-memo or something like that, not a big deal ;)

<Kevin> good morning all, wont be able to join via phone but will "listen" in via IRC

<josema> for the short-name, I mean

<Kevin> Jose, we could ask COMM what the appropriate name should be

John: Does anyone have an opinion about exactly what the difference means in terms of publication and reception?

Sandro: Is Working Draft a negative? Note may have more weight...

<sandro> for shortname, I'd think gov-data so http://www.w3.org/TR/gov-data

Sandro: But if it is not ready to be a Note, we should be frank about that.

Jose: It depends on how we feel about the doc being complete or not.

Sharron:There is not really a negative aspect of a Working Draft, is there? It seems to be a very respected step in the W3C process.

<Kevin> Sharron, yes, I realize that is w3c process but it is hurting perceptions and understanding of our work

<johnlsheridan> Its "done" but is it "done done"?

<Kevin> got lots of feedback from DC community, like with issues paper draft they are waiting to the final before reviewing or using, we dont want that to be the case

<Kevin> I agree with John, lets say done but revisions and updates coming, doc will mature

<johnlsheridan> status as WD also encourages further participation maybe?

<josema> Kevin, I think that's exactly what a working draft is!

<josema> (although I understand the issue with "working draft")

<Kevin> I know, but that is not what our readers think

<josema> ah, governments... oh, well... ;)

<Rachel> agree, Sharron - working draft tells people we are still looking for their help to polish

<johnlsheridan> so your vote is for "note" Kevin?

Daniel: The idea that this will be the starting point for Year 2 is a good one. To start the conversation with the greater community

<Kevin> I am cool with our understanding and w3 process but think we need to watch our messaging to community, draft or working draft means different things to different people

<hughb> audience will need to understand better about living documents on the Web

<Kevin> Sharron and Daniel, I like that

<AdamHarvey> +1 to Note for PR purposes, but I still feel it is a Draft on our end

<josema> we can use the "status" section for that

John: What is the consensus position. Arguments are balanced on both sides of this question...Working Draft or Note?

<Zakim> josema, you wanted to remind john about need of resolution

<hughb> draft

<Kevin> all, we need to leave some of the decision to the comm team, they will know better

<Rachel> I don't know how much people outside w3c understand "note"

<Rachel> so if we want input from outside w3c, I think "working draft" is more meaningful

<Kevin> Again to Rachel's point, lets let comm decide what it is ultimately called and labeled

<Kevin> after giving them criteria of what it is and what we hope

Jose: Must resolve that we want to publish the document. Ask the group if we agree to publish and the resoultion should appear in the minutes

John: Proposed: that we publish the data.gov.* memo as a Working Draft

<sandro> +1

<Rinke> +1

<Daniel_Bennett> +1

<hughb> +1

<josema> +1

<johnlsheridan> +1

<Rachel> +1

<Sharron> +1

<Kevin> -1 but fine

<AdamHarvey> 0

<sandro> Kevin, to me "-1" means you strongly object, and will try to block this move.

John: Also use it as an opportunity for people in the government community to contribute to this ongoing work

<Owen> -1 Does "Working Draft" imply that the document is on the Recommendation track?

<sandro> No, Owen.

<Sylvia> +1

<Kevin> Sandro, I dont agree but wont block the decision for consensus reasons.

<Owen> OK +1

<sandro> I'd use "-0" for "I don't like it, but I wont block it"

John: Can we move on?

Sandro: Can we say there is no blockage and we have consensus?

All: agreed

Sandro: Will talk to webmasters and try to get this published by Tuesday

ACTION: Sandro - coordinate with W3C webmasters to get dat.gov.* published by Tuesday

<Kevin> last comment, we have worked with COMM on outreach and have much feedback from reporters who are helping us get the word out, draft wont be received well, most will say, ok will wait for final, talk to me then.

Resolved: To publish the data.gov.* as a Working Draft

<Kevin> me too ok so -0

<AdamHarvey> Do we still want graphics included with the doc?

<josema> good question... I was thinking of them as accompanying... somehow...

<Kevin> adam, yes, needed much

John: Yes if we can have them, but it depends on ETF

<Daniel_Bennett> yes

<AdamHarvey> Right on, I'm on ETF, so I can work with Rachel, etc. as needed

ACTION: AdamHarvey - work with Rachel and ETF on graphic content for published version of data.gov.* memo

<Kevin> Edelman and Karen M want to use graphics to convey doc to those who arent tech next week

<josema> included or not, I don't have an opinion, but, yes, please, add graphics! :)

<josema> Adam, I envision an issue with graphics: the pointers; we won't have the documents nor the pointers either

<Daniel_Bennett> wow, most convo on IRC

Face to Face 3

<Kevin> ready for what is up? next?

<Kevin> can briefly outline stuff for next week

Jose: We have had 2 F2F meetings as a group. The best was in DC where govt agency reps were included. We discussed having the next meeting in Santa Clara in Nov or do something different along the lines of what we did in DC
... Since the last F2F was in US, we thought next one would appropriately be in Europe. There is a lot of Open gov activity there at this time

<Kevin> Sharron, I dont think we will get a large group in santa clara but open to getting as many of us as possible together

<Kevin> I am on the plenary committee and we are starting to work through the agenda, egov is included

<Sharron> agreed,Kevin it would be great to catch up in person even informally

<Kevin> agree with Jose on next major planned meeting, should be in JLS home

Jose: my proposal is to organize this meeting in Europe in Nov or Dec

<Kevin> this year?

<Kevin> might want to wait till spring and some conclusion on our funding intitiatives and outreach to get money for travel

Jose: Ask the group about opinions for a meeting at that time/

<johnlsheridan> Brussels is the best venue (only 2 hours from London via Eurostar)

John: Excellent idea, Brussels is good venue, easy to get to on the train, draw out some help-in-kind from commission

Owen: If you think it will bring additional support to these efforts, it would be great

<josema> I very much hope so, that's one of the goals

Jose: egov conference in Sweden is another possibility, mid-November

<Kevin> sharron, that is a week after plenary in CA, I couldnt make it

Jose: Personal Democracy forum coming to Europe - Barcelona in November

<josema> just my personal opinion for now...

<Daniel_Bennett> note for US, Nov 21st through 28 heavy vacation/Thanksgiving travel

<josema> thanks, Daniel, we need to keep it in mind, too, since I'd expect remotees to join (at least at times)

<josema> yup

Jose: Will explore the feasibility and propose specific dates

ACTION: Jose - Will explore the feasibility of various European venues and conference collaborations and propose specific dates.

<Kevin> agreed with Daniel and +1 on Jose comment

<Daniel_Bennett> http://www.w3.org/2009/11/TPAC/

<josema> 2-6 Nov 2009

<Kevin> I agree with Jose, would love to have Rachel there, its close right?

<Daniel_Bennett> Santa Clara Marriott, Santa Clara, California, (Silicon Valley) USA

<Daniel_Bennett> 2 November - 6 November 2009

<josema> not too far for her, I believe

<Kevin> cant wait, reservations already made..

<josema> ah, spokane-santa clara = 900 miles (not far)

<AdamHarvey> john are you muted?

<josema> arghhh.

What's going on/coming up

<Kevin> want me to cover next week?

<johnlsheridan> yes please

<Kevin> OK. chairs are meeting with comm at 11am, edelman is putting a media plan together

<Kevin> for next week which will leverage data.gov memo

<Kevin> and work of group

<Kevin> Karen Meyers and Sandro will be joining me at expo and summit, Karen is trying to schedule meetings with different folks as well

<josema> Kevin, next week? or do you mean next IG call?

<Kevin> we are looking to leverage event to promote group work

John: Main aim for next week is to leave the data.gov.* memo with the group
...My collegue, Richard Sterling from Cabinet office will be there and I will introduce him to Karen and Kevin

<Kevin> will attempt to send a summary of media plan and activities to group by COB Friday

ACTION: Kevin - to send a summary of media plan and activities to group by COB Friday

John: anyone else going to Gov 2.0 conference?

<AdamHarvey> Wanted to attend Gov 2.0 , but can't afford it...

<Kevin> Should also cover XBRL conference if Daniel can and there are no summit questions

<Sylvia> wanted too but no budget

<Kevin> We would like to get a couple pages of new egov site up for next week if that is possible BTW

<josema> http://www.w3.org/2009/03/xbrl/cfp.html

<Kevin> Karen is working on outreach and I am getting emails out to govt people this week, we have discussed getting a side meeting of egov people together around oct 4 or 7th

<Kevin> in DC at FDIC

<Owen> XML in Practice conference September 30 & October 1: http://www.idealliance.org/conferences_and_events/xmlinpractice_2009_conference__exposition

Daniel: will be speaking, if anyone wants to attend send a note, I can arrange

<Kevin> Forgot an item, Daniel, we wanted to know if you would be available next week to chat to media if the opportunity comes up

<Daniel_Bennett> yes

<Daniel_Bennett> I will send all my contact info to you

<Kevin> excellent, thank you!!

Owen: I received invitation but it is cost prohibitive. Is there any expo or free part that I could attend?

<Kevin> I hurt when I paid the money, particularly with AIA funds

<Kevin> out of my VP Admin budget..

Sandro: Isn't first day an expo?

<Kevin> yes, I got a free invite on Friday given I was paid for conference

Owen: They encourage you to request an invitation, which I did and only then learned of the cost.

<Kevin> which showed they were getting low registration for expo (my conclusion)

<josema> fully agree with Owen

<Kevin> ditto from me owen and sharron

<AdamHarvey> ditto for me as well

John: Online Information conference in London, proposed significant focus on semantic content, inquired about some egov features of work

<josema> FOSE 2010 proposal?

<johnlsheridan> go ahead :)

Owen: Presentation proposals for FOSE have been closed, but imagine they would entertain a proposal for us to have a F2F in conjunction

<Kevin> we got our submission in for panel and workshop

<Kevin> we have great contact from education director/committee

<Kevin> he just left on vacation yesterday but got stuff in on time, he will champion

<Kevin> very interested in w3c and egov work

<Owen> FOSE March 23 - 25: http://1105govinfoevents.com/event_planning/cfp.asp?Conference=295

JOse: Mid-March next year may provide a good opportunity. Will know more when we get response to our submitted proposals
... Impressed with the organization of Personal Democracy Conference Europe. Have secured place for myself. The Barcelona conference is great but in same week as another governemtn conference, posing conflict for many government officials

<johnlsheridan> malmo or barcelona - whats the weather like in barcelona that time of year?

<josema> I plan to attend both (crazy me!)

<Kevin> good rates to barcelona and madrid from UNITED in March, starting new flights, I think 400 round trip

John: In UK we are fantastically busy around linked data and will have some announcements soon.

Jose: Facing the question of the maturity of the semantic web technology, many see the potential but don't completely understand. My opinion is that the tech has matured but government use has not. That is where our work is.

<Kevin> + 1 sharron

Jose: Believe the memo will be very helpful

John: Using the phrase that it is "newly mature"

<Rachel> we're laughing on the inside, John

John: If there is nothing to add, we can adjourn. Thanks everyone.