Social Web Incubator Group Teleconference

21 Apr 2010

See also: IRC log


MacTed, +95177aaaa, pchampin, DKA, +049172247aabb, yoshiaki, melvster, Anita, hhalpin, rreck


<trackbot> Date: 21 April 2010

<MacTed> but why don't you see anyone on channel?

<MacTed> hhalpin - I've told trackbot to start the meeting, and RRSAgent and Zakim are doing their things ... except that Zakim doesn't seem to see anyone on channel, only on the phone...

<DKA> Hi all.

<DKA> can hear you

<hhalpin> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Incubator Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 21 April 2010

<DKA> Can't chair - but could scribe.

<DKA> Scribe: Dan

<DKA> ScribeNick: DKA

Harry: Jeff Jaffee is very interested in [process changes?] in w3c. Hoping we can come to consensus on some of these issues.

Harry can you share the link?

<hhalpin> IP caller?

<yoshiaki> +yoshiaki; got it

<hhalpin> http://www.w3.org/2010/04/14-swxg-minutes.html

<hhalpin> Approve minutes?

<rreck> +1 approve

Harry: +1


<hhalpin> Minutes from April 14th approved

Harry: next week should we cancel the meeting (because of www2010)?

+1 for canceling

<rreck> i could be here

<rreck> -1 canceling

<AnitaD> -1 I cant make it

<hhalpin> Next meeting cancelled

<hhalpin> But resume as normal with policy language discussions and information cards

<yoshiaki> +1

<hhalpin> for the first Wednesday in May

Next meeting - may 5th

Action reminders

<rreck> i think the first wed in May is the 5th

Harry: Please check all your actions [and report on status to the mailing list]

<hhalpin> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/track/

<hhalpin> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/track/actions/open

request from Jeff.

Proposals for lightweight process changes

<hhalpin> scribenick: hhalpin

DKA: there is a proposal called W3C outpost thought up by DKA
... and Robin Berjon

<DKA> Harry: Jeff would like to get approval for some proposals of opening up W3c at next TPAc (in November).

<DKA> Harry: To be discussed at www2010.

<DKA> http://www.w3.org/2010/03/outposts-proposal-snapshot.html

<DKA> That is the outposts proposal.

<DKA> Most of the work done by Robin, to be clear.

DKA: How can W3C help these efforts?
... efforts like OMB, Salmon Protocol, how can we help these efforts
... pose the question that way, as opposed to why these efforts aren't happening at W3C
... which is different than saying what's the problem, W3C is the answer
... the point of this proposal
... is for the W3C to provide tools and basic templates
... high quality tools like issue tracking, actions, IRC channels, stuff like trackbot
... and provide this as a kind of package with minimal staff impact
... provide some kind of IPR for efforts
... often the intention is to release it royalty-free, but there's issues with understanding tricky legal issues re copyright, open source
... so W3C could provide these tools and processes
... so that fledgling efforts could use them
... with minimal effort, like making the XG process even easier
... so we don't even have W3C members at all.
... just one W3C member as a suggestor, not even a sponsor
... the Outpost proposal is to see how W3C proposal could help these efforts around
... so we had this discussion at the AC meeting.
... so we had another discussion about how W3C standards can be fed to ISO groups
... and so make them "real" standards in the very formal sense of the word
... as W3C standards are actually recommendations
... so the point is at least 2 individuals from 2 different companies
... can then make a roadmap between that kind of work and ISO standardization
... in helping to bridge that gap.

<DKA> Harry: any questions?

<melvster> good idea

<MacTed> definitely good idea

<yoshiaki> good idea

<pchampin> good idea indeed

Community Group?

<DKA> Harry: 2 points - good idea, I worry about the name "outposts" - sounds like w3c colonising... rather than helping people.

ah, an embassy in another realm

DKA: to be the opposite of colonization
... it should have a different identity
... different website
... to prevent developers etc. from being alienated
... including academic sheen
... the point of the name is to sound cool

MacTed: We need a better communication
... W3C standards aren't really standards, they're Recommendations
... origins were in trying to unify and stop failure of interoperability
... the browser wars

<DKA> MacTed: I think that's more likely to happen with a better communications effort. As you say, W3C standards aren't really standards. Their origins were in efforts to aid interoperability.

<DKA> MacTed: as things have been evolving, they are shifting towards forward thinking... that's a different thing?

<DKA> Harry: how could the suggestion be advertised differently?

<DKA> MacTed: Opening processes is definitely useful. Don't know about "outposts" as a brand. Most of the summary sounds likes a win.

W3C Frontier?

<DKA> MacTed: ...but in the same space, creating a new space doesn't necessarily changes the perception about w3c. If there are perceptions against w3c then let's change that. Maybe "W3C Frontier" would make more sense?

<DKA> Harry: idea makes sense to me. I don't like the word "frontier" either.

<DKA> (I like "frontier" as well... :) )

<DKA> Harry: I had a conversation with Facebook. Asked them - why are you using things like google groups - maybe google isn't a neutral 3rd party? The response I got: we would be happy to use a w3c list but [too difficult].

<DKA> Harry: another point made by fb - the login. If you use a google group, most people have a google account so easy to log in...

<DKA> [low friction]

<pchampin> I agree

ah I see!

<pchampin> variant: I have one google account, and people keep inviting me to google docs on another address, which I do not want to register in my google account

<DKA> MacTed: I have 2 google accounts - it's very difficult to manage that in that situation...

<DKA> openID....

<pchampin> but I agree: this makes it easier for many people

<pchampin> foaf+ssl ?

<melvster> yes to both :)

<DKA> MacTed: different issues in different places... If the pain they're trying to solve is - having an account in w3c space - you've got to have some kind of account if there's going to be moderation...

add easy comments via a webform.

<DKA> Harry: Google groups also uses a blog-like interface where you can add comments very easily...

<DKA> MacTed: That's an interface issue - we could do the same ...

<rreck> im not sure its that appealing

<DKA> Harry: any other comments on outposts or on opening up w3c?

<DKA> Harry: Other comments...

<rreck> if i have to ask someone if they know what w3c is, and they answer 'no' there is little point in explaining

perceived formality of many things?

<DKA> MacTed: One offputting thing about w3c is the perceived formality - the perceived formal process which can be very offputting if you don't know what it is.


<DKA> Harry: one of the other issues that has been made. Are people familiar with the w3c member submission process?

Public Submissions process?

Which takes submissions from the general public

<DKA> Harry: If you make a spec - you can submit it to w3c as a member submission but only if you are a member. Another idea is a "public submission process" which takes submissions from the general public.

a separate index and formatting from actual member submissions and Rec-track work

get a Team comment

<DKA> Harry: would allow people who already developed something to submit...

<DKA> Harry: as the web has grown so exponentially it's difficult for Tim [or anyone else} to know what's going on everywhere. So this is one way to allow suggestions from all over...

<DKA> MacTed: That seems like a reinvention of rfc...


is basically patent policy

<DKA> Harry: it is, but with a difference - difference between ietf and w3c is patent policy.

<rreck> honestly, IMHO, this sounds more like a hammer looking for a nail than a nail that needs a hammer

<DKA> "W3C: Bringing hammers and nails together since 1992"

<rreck> heh

levels of membership?

<DKA> MacTed: perhaps there's a question of levels of membership.

no, besides invited experts

precisely, and jeff himself is interested in this space now

DKA: Let's revisit the reasons we're interested in.
... we need to be really careful about saying that the answer must be W3C
... so whether or not these assets that W3C brings to the table
... can make these benefits available to fledgling efforts who think
... they may not need the level of W3C process in collaboration
... but notice if they don't IP

<rreck> i agree

DKA: that's why I think a new website, a brand, will make a real difference.
... the benefit will only be realized if there is a new staff role is an evangelist type role
... that gets into these community

<rreck> amen!

DKA: that is aware and participates of these community efforts
... and that brings the benefits and tools to these efforts
... rather than say we're w3c, look at our great stuff w3c.

<DKA> Harry: some of these efforts like activity streams or portable contacts would say "we're not in the wild- we already have uptake" but at the same point, they might need to start thinking about IP issues...

<DKA> Harry: some of these social web efforts are fairly mature though the big problem of distributed mature social networks is far from solved...

DKA by suggestion do you basically kinda mean liason?

<DKA> Harry: W3C doesn't have liaisons with web 2.0 social stuff...

<rreck> sounds like it

<DKA> MacTed: I'm becoming less clear on what the goal is... W3C has these great tools and we want to make them available... But we actually want to use them to lure you in... and there is only dues-paying membership...

<DKA> Harry: Big benefit of w3c is the royalty-free patent policy. Meta-level goal is to make sure that these standards are open and royalty-free.

<melvster> +1

<DKA> +1 on patent policy being a key benefit

<DKA> Harry: that's why w3c has to be a member organization.

<DKA> Harry: you have to have members who have companies who have patents but a lot of the creativity comes from the community groups...

<rreck> this doesnt sounds like a great idea to me

DKA: free membership hasn't been taken off the table
... there is an argument that it would bring funding into the organization
... although others worry it may take away the funding
... if there was a free category you'd have more agreement

<DKA> Harry: you could imagine some slightly re-jigged invited expert status... Invited experts should not work for companies who have parents in that area...

<rreck> without funding there is more work with less money

<DKA> MacTed: I'm not saying that's not true but by that fact it kind of derails this other effort. You have to be able to declare patent-free whatever your contributions are. In order to do that you have to be working for an entity that will declare it for you or declare you free. There are legal costs...

<DKA> Harry: the conflict only exists when you work for a company that may have patents in that area...

there's provisional patents as well :)

<DKA> MacTed: There's all kind of aspects - employment contract law, patent law, etc... Does lend weight to "there has to be a degree of corporate involvement and therefore dues to support that" but that leads us back to where we are today...

<rreck> harry is breaking up

DKA: pushback from people in the AAC
... people who are not really exposed to community driven spec development
... questioning from folks who had just never heard of the idea
... I don't want to be mean, but I think we can discount that.
... since it wasn't grounded in the reality we're trying to address here
... so overall feedback is good
... so there's a level of education we'll have to do to the Advisory Committee
... otherwise we'll get a lot of pushback from the ac-list

<DKA> Harry: we could at least endorse modulo name changes the w3c outposts proposal...

DKA: not clear.

<DKA> MacTed: I couldn't endorse it in it's current state. The goals it's trying to achieve are not clear and how it means to achieve them are not clear.

<rreck> what i heard today made me all sad. that is my best summation

rreck: from a business-side it's unclear if we can get more resources to supplement more work
... so we don't want to degrade participation in what W3C has.

<DKA> Harry: the outposts proposal would involve extra resources. The [risk we are trying to mitigate

<DKA> ...] is that "open standards" aren't really open. If they don't have a [proven

<DKA> ...] patent policy then there could be a problem for businesses who are trying to deploy these standards in the future.

I do agree we are techies talking to techies, but then we often have a good grasp of what's going on in the field :)

<DKA> MacTed: We are talking about techies talking to techies - bunch of random guys out there working for somebody who may not have a claim on what they're doing. What we want to have happen is.

<DKA> ... for somebody say "I agree I am not going to charge royalties"...

<DKA> s/adjourn//

<danbri> i have no audio out

<DKA> ;lkasads 'k;

<danbri> just nice to hear y'voices ;)

<rreck> i like and agree with harry's point

<DKA> s/ajourn/adjourn/

<rreck> last oen

<rreck> +1

Meeting Adjourned

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/04/21 16:09:58 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

FAILED: s/adjourn//
FAILED: s/ajourn/adjourn/
Found Scribe: Dan
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Dan> ...
Found ScribeNick: DKA
Found ScribeNick: hhalpin
ScribeNicks: DKA, hhalpin
Default Present: MacTed, +95177aaaa, pchampin, DKA, +049172247aabb, yoshiaki, melvster, Anita, hhalpin, rreck
Present: MacTed +95177aaaa pchampin DKA +049172247aabb yoshiaki melvster Anita hhalpin rreck
Found Date: 21 Apr 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/21-swxg-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]