17:46:59 RRSAgent has joined #newstd 17:46:59 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/06/07-newstd-irc 17:47:07 zakim, list 17:47:07 I see no active conferences 17:47:09 scheduled at this time are W3C_(NewStd)2:00PM, XML_QueryWG(fttf)2:00PM, DIG_()2:00PM, UW_UWA()1:00PM 17:47:14 zakim, this will be W3C_(NewStd) 17:47:14 ok, Ian; I see W3C_(NewStd)2:00PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes 17:47:43 Ian has changed the topic to: agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vision-newstd/2010Jun/0000.html 17:55:45 dom has joined #newstd 17:58:06 tlr has joined #newstd 17:58:06 W3C_(NewStd)2:00PM has now started 17:58:13 +Ian 17:58:33 rrsagent, set logs member 17:59:06 zakim, call thomas-781 17:59:06 ok, tlr; the call is being made 17:59:07 +Thomas 17:59:31 scribenick: Dom 17:59:49 http://www.macworld.com/article/151730/2010/06/liveupdate.html 18:01:23 +Dom 18:01:45 +[IPcaller] 18:01:55 zakim, IPcaller is Karl 18:01:55 +Karl; got it 18:02:23 Ralph has joined #newstd 18:02:33 + +1.617.350.aaaa 18:02:42 zakim, aaaa is Andy 18:02:42 +Andy; got it 18:02:51 zakim, mute me 18:02:51 Dom should now be muted 18:03:08 +Ralph 18:06:13 + +1.408.354.aabb 18:06:27 zakim, aabb is Eran 18:06:27 +Eran; got it 18:07:22 zakim, who's here? 18:07:22 On the phone I see Ian, Thomas, Dom (muted), Karl, Andy, Ralph, Eran 18:07:24 On IRC I see Ralph, tlr, dom, RRSAgent, Zakim, karl, Ian 18:08:05 hhalpin has joined #newstd 18:08:11 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vision-newstd/2010Jun/0000.html 18:08:31 code: NEWST 18:09:46 ack me 18:09:47 [introductions around the vir-table] 18:10:16 zakim, mute me 18:10:16 Dom should now be muted 18:11:37 zakim, who's here? 18:11:37 On the phone I see Ian, Thomas, Dom (muted), Karl, Andy, Ralph, Eran 18:11:38 On IRC I see hhalpin, Ralph, tlr, dom, RRSAgent, Zakim, karl, Ian 18:12:22 +??P9 18:12:29 Zakim, ??P9 is hhalpin 18:12:29 +hhalpin; got it 18:12:32 zakim, mute hhalpin 18:12:32 hhalpin should now be muted 18:14:10 zakim, unmute hhalpin 18:14:10 hhalpin should no longer be muted 18:14:16 Zakim, unmute me 18:14:16 hhalpin was not muted, hhalpin 18:14:44 Harry: Social Web XG, Semantic Web, interested, re-dialing back in 18:15:00 zakim, mute hhalpin 18:15:00 hhalpin should now be muted 18:15:42 IanJ: I'm interested in other suggestions for possible contributors to this task force 18:16:58 http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/ij-newstd-201005/ 18:17:25 IanJ: expect we're going to work completely in public - starting with the minutes of this meeting 18:17:32 ... [going through slides presenting the task force] 18:18:48 + +0771788aacc 18:18:59 zakim, aacc is Harry 18:18:59 +Harry; got it 18:19:01 zakim, aacc is hhalpin 18:19:01 sorry, tlr, I do not recognize a party named 'aacc' 18:19:07 -hhalpin 18:19:17 Zakim, aacc is hhalpin 18:19:17 sorry, hhalpin, I do not recognize a party named 'aacc' 18:20:07 +1 office in silicon valley 18:22:21 zakim, mute me 18:22:21 Dom was already muted, dom 18:23:09 q+ how many processes versus how many tools thinking about the hacking communities. 18:23:29 q+ to ask how many processes versus how many tools thinking about the hacking communities. 18:25:50 q+ to ask local communities, local chapters, (pechakucha, ted, lift, ignite, mozilla drumbeat, …) 18:29:47 http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/NewStdWork 18:29:57 q+ to ask what would be the notion of fork applied to w3c standards. what can we learn from github? 18:33:31 IanJ: public mailing list, public wiki; interested in hearing about rhythm 18:33:39 ... was thinking of a weekly phone meeting 18:33:54 ... no F2F scheduled 18:33:59 ack k 18:33:59 karl, you wanted to ask how many processes versus how many tools thinking about the hacking communities. and to ask local communities, local chapters, (pechakucha, ted, lift, 18:34:02 ... ignite, mozilla drumbeat, …) and to ask what would be the notion of fork applied to w3c standards. what can we learn from github? 18:34:24 Karl: you mentioned "several processes" in your slide 18:34:29 q+ http://www.w3.org/2010/03/openw3c 18:34:35 ... we often hear that W3C has too much process 18:34:45 q- http://www.w3.org/2010/03/openw3c 18:34:47 q+ 18:34:47 ... and that the existing process isn't even followed 18:35:09 ... and that as result, the quality of the work depends on the people 18:35:27 ... so my thinking was that instead of thinking of processes, we should think in terms of tools 18:35:43 ... for instance, the WhatWG grew based on unwritten rules 18:36:03 ... when something went wrong, they created a tool to address the source of the problem, trying to ensure it doesn't happen again 18:36:07 q? 18:36:11 ack hh 18:36:15 ... it might be an interesting idea to look at 18:36:28 http://www.w3.org/2010/03/openw3c 18:36:34 Harry: I wanted to bring the attention of everyone to a document I worked on with Ian 18:36:39 ... http://www.w3.org/2010/03/openw3c 18:36:49 ... I would like us to brainstorm on concrete suggestions 18:37:41 http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Newstd#References 18:37:52 ... see also Dan Appelquist's outpost proposal 18:38:00 http://www.w3.org/2010/03/outposts-proposal-snapshot.html 18:38:22 ... I would like us to flesh out the top 5 or 10 changes that are needed 18:38:43 IanJ: one of the ideas is to step back and look at the bigger question of what people want to do at a standards body 18:38:54 ... at what point additional constraints bring value 18:39:25 + +1.707.478.aadd 18:39:28 ... I think this would help identify what incubation would add to W3C, how we can liaise with other organizations 18:39:34 zakim, aadd is Larry 18:39:34 +Larry; got it 18:39:35 zakim, aadd is Larry 18:39:36 sorry, dom, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd' 18:40:27 lrosen has joined #newstd 18:40:52 IanJ: we also wanted to make it easy to go through the process if you already satisfy the needed constraints 18:41:21 ... Harry, Dan and others have suggested ideas - but I'd like to look at them in the context of the big pictures 18:41:51 karl has left #newstd 18:41:59 karl has joined #newstd 18:42:11 IanJ: I also want to make sure we go out and talk to people that are working on specs 18:42:19 ... trying to figure out what these people might need 18:42:34 q? 18:42:40 ... we need to identify these spec developers 18:42:44 did you talk already about scope of specifications? 18:43:06 IanJ: we have other task forces whose focus will be more on scope 18:43:22 ... this task force focuses more on how things get here 18:43:38 ... the other task forces will look at how these new works get prioritarized 18:43:54 ... that said, up-front criteria of moving to Rec track would be useful for the community 18:44:10 ... in our current incubators, half of the specs have moved to Rec track 18:44:14 q+ 18:44:22 ack lrosen 18:44:43 Larry: I've been working with the Open Web Foundation 18:45:01 ... we've worked on a set of agreements that are suitable for standard-setting groups that do not have an upfront scope 18:45:22 ... to allow to develop specs in a low-impact way 18:45:42 ... they don't even really know what they're developing 18:45:49 ... how far in that direction are you thinking to go? 18:46:00 IanJ: I don't want to prejudice of the outcome; interested in opinions 18:46:13 Andy: if things are going to happen anyway, 18:46:35 ... although I'm not very involved in the current W3C's vision, 18:47:23 ... personally, I think it may as well to bring it to existing organizations with expertise in the area 18:47:45 ... a bit like what happened with the Web services specs - developed first ad-hoc, and then brought to W3C and OASIS 18:48:17 (If I want to create a piece of technology or I want to solve an interoperability issues, all the tools (wiki, mailing-lists, skype, etc.) are available. The question is then "Why should I work in the W3C cafe?") 18:48:41 karl: w3c started when collaborating wasn't that easy 18:48:48 q+ 18:48:48 [Karl evokes the question "What value does w3c bring?" 18:48:51 ... the Web can be used easily for collaboration nowadays 18:49:03 ... it makes W3C much less useful as a collaboration platform 18:49:13 value proposition -> http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Newstd#Value_Added_By_W3C 18:49:16 ... so, why should someone work in W3C for its piece of technology? 18:49:23 ... what's the value? 18:50:13 ... is the problem barriers, or is the problem the lack of attraction? 18:50:29 IanJ: I think we need to look both a lowering barriers, and to an articulated value proposition 18:50:39 ... fwiw, I don't think our value proposition is rooted in tooling 18:50:44 ack lr 18:50:48 ... it's rooted in communities, patent policy, etc 18:51:03 Larry: a couple of good things about W3C values 18:51:16 ... in OWF, we're struggling to find the number of commitments companies have to make to participate 18:51:16 however, a good open source tool-set that the wider community maintains would be great and help take stress from the Systesm Team 18:51:38 ... in terms of disclosures, patent commitments, copyright contributions re-use without permissions or depending on the success of a process 18:51:47 (company and individuals frictions) 18:51:49 ... W3C brings a kind of granularity in terms of process 18:51:55 lrosen: W3C brings" regularity" to the processs...but engineers think of that as barriers 18:52:00 s/granularity/regularity 18:52:28 ... the challenge is to find the bridge between developing ideas, and making commitments 18:52:48 IanJ: there is a split between "lightweight, no company commitment" to "we need company commitments" 18:53:03 ... does that match others' view of the world? 18:53:18 ... when things get serious, lawyers need to get involved 18:53:30 ... (also, PR considerations, deployment questions, ...) 18:55:32 ack LR 18:55:57 Larry: I don't know what developers fear about the "process" 18:56:03 ... the non-easy process 18:56:11 q+ 18:56:14 ... W3C apparently imposes a great deal of overhead 18:56:22 does the work need to happen at w3c to be w3c quality, under w3c rf, etc? (thinking out loud about mobile, portable process) 18:56:25 ... and it occurs before the ideas get a chance to percolate 18:56:52 ... I agree it's likely that serious patents are likely to affect things in this space 18:57:10 ... what we would want is at least ensuring that people coming to an effort come in good faith 18:57:25 ... with some form of disclosure commitment, some form of patent commitment 18:57:35 ... and they want to have people like me stay out of the way 18:57:44 (instead of swallowing everything, distributing w3c everywhere. Ted model, Pecha Kucha model) 18:57:58 ... i.e. they don't want to need involvement from the legal counsel 18:58:22 IanJ: so we want to minimize the commitments, and explain the importance of the commitments we want to keep 18:58:29 ack Ralph 18:58:36 ... e.g. with examples of problems if not keeping these commitments 18:58:48 Ralph: I think Andy and Larry are hitting an important point 18:59:11 ... I think there is a set of raw-coders developers for whom anything but the code is a distraction 18:59:18 ... they don't want to deal with these distractions 18:59:20 rrsagent, make minutes 18:59:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/06/07-newstd-minutes.html Ian 18:59:34 ... I would like to see what W3C can reasonably bring to that end of the spectrum 18:59:49 ... while keeping our ability to address our current end of spectrum, with clear IPR rules 19:00:19 ... one question is: do we believe that the end result always need to be an open standard, implementable on an RF basis? 19:00:46 IanJ: I think the OWF experience will be informative here 19:01:04 ack hh 19:01:06 -Ralph 19:01:10 ... I think we might need another week before splitting into task forces 19:01:12 zakim, who's noisy? 19:01:23 dom, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Harry (96%) 19:01:25 [Ralph departs] 19:01:46 Harry: I don't think tooling is one of our strong points - although open sourcing our tools would help along that line 19:01:50 (W3C toolkit: How do I create w3c in my own city? :))) 19:01:55 q? 19:02:05 ... we need to be careful about naming 19:02:09 Harry: I think we should be wide open on what we accept. 19:02:15 ... terms such as "specs", "incubation", etc 19:02:38 Harry: We should do surveys... 19:02:44 ... e.g. the word "outpost" didn't get a lot of feedback 19:02:51 Harry: People are working on "specs" 19:02:53 q+ 19:02:57 ... fundamentally, people are working on specs - with different level of consensus 19:03:03 ack lrosen 19:03:15 Larry: it's not just the IPR policy - it's really the scope of the project 19:03:22 lrosen: Not just IPR policy; it is the scope of the project ... companies need to understand scope. 19:03:26 ... companies often need to know about the scope before allowing their engineers to get involved 19:03:34 q? 19:04:11 Eran: to me, the biggest value of the W3C (and similarly to the IETF) is the built-in community 19:04:23 ... with their technical expertise, also for spec-writing 19:04:32 one more comment: "Pay to play" is a disincentive. 19:04:38 ... it gives much better technologies - more solid and well thoughts documents 19:04:53 ... over the past year and a half, I've moved most of my work to IETF 19:05:08 ... because the open community is frustrating in the time needed to get feedback on drafts 19:05:19 ... having these people available is one of the biggest selling point of W3C 19:05:38 ... most of my recent work has been targeting protocols, which is traditionally in the IETF realm 19:05:52 ... in terms of what work that needs to look at: 19:06:14 ... * free participation - it's very expensive (the invited expert model doesn't scale, doesn't let unknown people to join) 19:06:42 ... meetings, events, workshop raise the bar in terms of engagement, esp. with the very big acamedic presence in W3C 19:06:56 ... membership and participation model are in desperate need of revision 19:07:07 ... obviously this opens the question of sustainibility 19:07:24 ... * on the legal front, I did a 180° change of heart on that space 19:07:33 ... I've come to the conclusion that it's not that important 19:07:46 Eran: Better to protect against bad actors 19:07:48 ... I think the goal should be to protect against bad actors 19:07:56 ... avoid manipulation 19:08:16 ... lack of IPR protection hasn't been actually a big problem in IETF 19:08:41 ... some companies have made it clear they would charge for a spec - and that has been accepted 19:08:56 ... we're still pretty new at that game - only 15 years 19:09:11 ... I'd like a much more lightweight process 19:09:17 ... with no involvement from lawyer 19:09:33 ... not a perfect protection, but a good enough attempt at good faith 19:10:01 ... probably as a complement of the existing process - no need to throw out what is already working for companies in W3C 19:10:02 Eran: "Giving an option" 19:10:10 ...find some low-hanging fruit specs to work with 19:10:14 +1 looking for low-hanging fruit. 19:10:18 ... I would see that as proposing it as option, and let the market which option works better 19:10:23 Hmmm...thinking of ostatus network in social web world 19:10:37 Eran: I think "incubator" is confusing 19:10:52 ... btw, "incubator" is a very confusing word - not even experimental, brainstorming 19:11:09 ... telling people that are working on specs that they are incubating - not very productice 19:11:12 s/ice/ive/ 19:11:20 "skunk works" 19:11:23 ... a lightweight WG environment would be the ideal solution 19:11:55 ... it would combine the great W3C community with a less foolproof, more lightweight approach 19:12:00 notes that this is also what we've heard re people's take on the word "incubator" and "outpost" 19:12:09 q? 19:12:11 ... for things where the full IPR protection might not be useful 19:12:19 ... * my third points: tools! 19:12:42 IanJ: note that both OWF and Apache are using the word "incubation" 19:12:51 ... but apparently we need a better name 19:12:57 thinks "incubator" makes people think of code for some reason 19:13:01 http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/NewStdWork 19:13:37 IanJ: one open questions: what orgs/individuals should we involve? 19:13:42 public-vision-newstd@w3.org 19:13:45 ... please send to the list 19:14:02 ... preferably public list, or to me if you don't feel like sharing in public 19:14:19 ... another question: opportunity to interact with these people? 19:14:26 ... e.g. a social web conf next month in SF 19:14:39 ... what fora should we be talking people with about this? 19:14:47 ... I had hoped to break down work in task forces: 19:15:00 ... - interviews and use cases 19:15:49 ... Karl, you mentioned the WhatWG process based on tools 19:16:11 ... I prefer avoiding complicating process, simplifying along the way 19:16:22 ... We'll see about tasks force creations till next week 19:16:25 wfm 19:16:44 I'm out of the country for 1 week starting tonight. 19:17:10 * interview: list of questions? candidates? 19:17:11 * use case: list of requirements (to be augmented by interviews) 19:17:11 * barriers: list of perceived barriers 19:17:46 -Thomas 19:17:58 Wondering if Ian meant Web 2.0 summit 19:18:07 http://www.web2summit.com/web2010 19:18:09 ah, ok 19:18:47 RRSAgent, draft minutes 19:18:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/06/07-newstd-minutes.html dom 19:18:52 -Karl 19:18:54 -Andy 19:18:54 -Dom 19:18:55 -Eran 19:18:57 -Larry 19:19:01 -Harry 19:19:03 -Ian 19:19:05 W3C_(NewStd)2:00PM has ended 19:19:07 Attendees were Ian, Thomas, Dom, Karl, +1.617.350.aaaa, Andy, Ralph, +1.408.354.aabb, Eran, hhalpin, +0771788aacc, Harry, +1.707.478.aadd, Larry 19:19:53 zakim 707.478.aadd was Larry Rosen 19:20:14 lrosen has left #newstd 19:22:32 rrsagent, set logs public 21:20:48 Zakim has left #newstd 21:24:44 tlr-bbl has left #newstd