See also: IRC log
Present: Karl, Ian, Mike, Andrew, Olivier, Thomas, Dom, Harry, Arnaud
<scribe> Scribe: karl
Ian: I agree with not making a
too big survey
... I'm hesitant with concrete proposals, because I'm not sure we are all on the same page.
... There are still open questions and use cases that we do not know how to handle.
... (giving example about how wsdl at ISO could be taken as a use case for how to submit technologies that have already been widely adopted)
... I want every use cases on the table before starting.
<Ian> IJ: My main point is to get the use cases on the table
<Ian> ...before coming up with concrete proposals.
Arnaud: The discussion around bringing new standards to w3c should not be part of the discussions
Ian: Taking public submissions and managing those could be part of our call.
<Ian> IJ: We have thought about "public submissions"
Arnaud: there are two issues
<Ian> ALH: Two use cases (1) existing specs (2) space for development
<tlr> I think most of the questions are in the grey zone between
tlr: There is a huge grey
... How W3C should engage?
... What are the incentives for Co. and indiv. to engage at W3C.
<Ian> tlr: want to make w3c the place people want to bring things....lower perceived barriers
<Ian> Mike: I think that what we want to do is get w3c out more into the grey area
<Ian> ...so that people in that area gravitate to w3c when they move into a more mature state
Mike: My biggest concern we will
reach out people
... who would otherwise go to google groups
... who don't know what to do after the first steps of work
... and make it easy for these to participate under w3c umbrella.
... Make it easier the transition from their own groups to w3c world
<Ian> MC: Want to help people would have to learn about ipr policies, etc. and ease them into the world of formal standards
Mike: From talking about work and going to a formal standard.
Arnaud: In many cases these ad
hoc groups have members
... it would be interesting to know why they chose to not make a submission.
Ian: We may think we have a sense
what people want
... but maybe there are questions we do not think about.
... Maybe the survey is not the good way of doing it.
... I have put a long list of questions.
... and I want to find the right questions and the right way to ask.
<Ian> Use case: News ontology
Ian: (ian giving examples on IRC)
<Ian> Use case: competing formats in w3c
Ian: another use case is competing format in W3C, or technologies
<Ian> karl: the issue with the "long list" is that you may create culture shock.
<Ian> ...you want diversity...don't want a long survey that is daunting to answer
<Ian> IJ: what are you suggesting? shorter survey? no survey?
<Ian> karl: Maybe allow people to tell their own story
<Ian> ...or maybe a bug-tracker
<Ian> ..allow people to enter the usual issue they have...allowing them to categorize
<Ian> Mike: I like the idea of use cases; good start
Mike: I like the idea of use
... There are a lot of stuff we know already
<Ian> Mike: I'm not opposed to the survey; but I think we have a pretty good idea of where people perceive barriers
Mike: by reading blogs and
... Maybe the survey could help but we could start from the use cases
Ian: usecase example - the cost of building the consensus
<Ian> Use case: Spec profile
ian: (explaining the use case)
<Ian> MC: Good use case (profile)
ian: Should the W3C accomodate that?
<Ian> MC: There are use cases where general community can't agree on must/should but a specific subcommunity does
<Ian> MC: May undermine consensus, but may keep work under umbrella
Use Case: Widely deployed spec
<tlr> right. widget signatures are an example for a profile of XML Signature that's been done within W3C.
Use Case: Revisiting existing notes to promote them
<Ian> Use case: Widely deployed spec to get w3c brand / revisit existing Note promote it / spec maintenance
Ian: I have this sense we need a
... that could take care of a spec
... even if old
... could raise issues on them.
<Ian> IJ: what's the odata use case?
mike: the technology is still being
<Ian> MC: The technology is still being brainstormed
... It needs to be moved to a standard organization.
<Ian> Goal: Make it easy to move from incubator to rec track
mike: I would love to see a
lighter process where it would be easy to move it to WG
... W3C should become a destination.
Ian: How to ease the
... we want to lower the barriers, we want to design the things in a way that it is huge attraction.
<Ian> IJ: I don't know what the solution is yet for "easing the transition to rec track"
mike: the survey would be
... to ask more focused questions on tools and services
... to help these transitions
... A certain amount of research before asking the survey.
... You are looking for what people like and dislike
... at W3C.
<dom> (I wouldn't do a systematic survey; I would only ask specific questions to specific groups based on what we already know about them)
+1 to dom
Ian: I started to write to
... and I thought I wanted to maximize my work
... so the survey was my initial idea
... but indeed it could be done in a different way.
... I will put all use cases in the wiki.
(Mike champion leaves)
Arnaud: who do you expect to fill
... We are trying to reach the people who are ignoring
... the W3C
... and we might fail with the survey to reach the people we want to reach.
Ian: I want to blog about
... to have a public statement out there
... and counting on people in the task force to spread the word
... Jeff Jaffe will be on the west coast
(YES we can)
scribe: I would like to have this week to have a blog post for explaining the work of this TF
Arnaud: We should go to specific
... WhatWg, WSI, and others.
<Ian> * OpenARML
<Ian> * EEMBC
<Ian> * DiSo
<Ian> * WebM
<Ian> * Who from the linked open data community (contact Ivan Herman)?
<Ian> * WhatWG
Arnaud: Something volunteer to talk to others
Ian: we can start a list on the wiki with a list of groups to contact.
Ian: there are other topics we
are not used to address.
... In the end, if we have done a new process and is not used by people. We would fail.
<Ian> IJ: How do you translate designer needs to use case / process?
<Ian> karl: People want tutorials and other materials useful to the community; how can people comment on specs in a constructive way?
<Ian> ...interesting friction between users and implementers
<Ian> IJ: Who wants to work with me on next draft of survey?
Ian: would someone be available
to work on the next draft?
... It would be great to have a next draft available by Friday or Monday?
karl: I can try to find a bit of time
<Ian> IJ: commitment to mailing list reply suffices for me.
<Ian> ACTION: Ian to revise the survey to lighten it up will send to list this week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-newstd-minutes.html#action01]
Ian: If we have use cases clearly
... and target people to talk to
... In the next few days it would be good if people can commit to that.
<Ian> karl: Suggest getting name of organization and name of an individual to contact as well
did we look at the liaison page
<Ian> IJ: I will create wiki paeg for use cases
Ian: i was about to send the survey to past and present chairs of incubator groups
<Ian> ACTION: Ian to contact existing/former XG chairs to ask about their experiences [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-newstd-minutes.html#action02]
Ian: we have not done a quality control to our existing incubator group process.
<Ian> ACTION: Ian to Draft a letter to send to orgs with whom W3C has a liaison [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-newstd-minutes.html#action03]
scribe: anyone wants help with
... any other suggestions for learning about potential customers.
scribe: How do we find new customers.
hhalpin: what group is going to a different standard body and what are the reasons for this.
<Ian> ietf new work list?
Ian: The IETF has a list for bringing new work
<Ian> IJ: How about using Andy's newsletter to reach people?
Ian: How about using your newsletter to reach people.
<tlr> the new-work list is a coordination list between different standards bodies
<tlr> it's not how the IETF accepts new work
<tlr> they have the IETF mailing list, -00 Internet Draft submissions, and the hazing ritual called "BOF" for that.
<Ian> Andy: New issue of consortium newsletter goes out early July
<Ian> ...or Andy's blog
Andy: My newsletter reach many
people participating in the work of standards
... It would not be a bad idea on how we get the word out there.
... They had pretty good attention.
... Part of that is due to the way they wanted to be known.
... We want to be prepared to this.
... We could in the wiki how to put messaging milestones.
<Ian> work schedule: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/NewStdWork
Ian: this touch down to branding
... partly communications team
... There is on the wiki a schedule
Andy: everything we do in public is to create awareness
<Ian> Andrew: We want to get feedback and also create awareness in our target market
Andy: about what we are trying to
... when it will be available
... we have to be ready to answer the questions.
<Ian> karl: one reason for success of OWF was that a few key people in the org are active in social media space.
<tlr> +1 to Karl
<Ian> ..and they used those tools to communicate
<Ian> IJ: What other tools? Twitter is easy enough
<tlr> as an individual
<Ian> KD: as an individual
Ian: all your suggestions about tools are useful.
<Ian> IJ: What hash code?
<Ian> tlr: Important that people understand we are listening to people
tlr: There is an important point. We need to be out of our way and individuals engaging in the discussion
<Ian> tlr: People need to put out ideas, engage, etc.
(olivier suggests #openw3c)
tlr: but the hastag is not the main issue
<Ian> ACTION: Ian to come up with twitter hash code and start tweeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-newstd-minutes.html#action04]
<Ian> IJ: Is this meeting time ok?
tlr: this time is conflicting with another call.
tlr: social web xg
<tlr> +1 to another doodle
<Ian> ALH: Suggest another doodle
hhalpin: we want a time which is regular.
<dom> [I'm not sure we should insist on phone calls if we actually want to be inclusive]
<Arnaud> I'm sorry but I have to jump to another call
(discussions about the time of the call)