15:29:13 RRSAgent has joined #newstd 15:29:13 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/08/23-newstd-irc 15:29:15 RRSAgent, make logs world 15:29:17 Zakim, this will be 63978 15:29:17 ok, trackbot; I see Team_(newstd)15:30Z scheduled to start in 1 minute 15:29:18 Meeting: New Standards Vision Task Force Teleconference 15:29:18 Date: 23 August 2010 15:29:40 Team_(newstd)15:30Z has now started 15:29:46 +Ian 15:29:53 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vision-newstd/2010Aug/0015.html 15:30:00 agenda+ mind meld debrief 15:30:10 agenda+ starting up the web innovation forum 15:31:26 +Larry_Rosen 15:32:22 +dom 15:33:48 lrosen has joined #newstd 15:33:52 zakim, mute me 15:33:52 dom should now be muted 15:33:58 zakim, call thomas-781 15:33:58 ok, tlr; the call is being made 15:34:00 +Thomas 15:34:16 zakim, unmute me 15:34:16 dom should no longer be muted 15:34:37 +Arnaud_LeHors 15:34:45 Arnaud has joined #newstd 15:36:32 zakim, take up item 1 15:36:32 agendum 1. "mind meld debrief" taken up [from Ian] 15:36:43 zakim, mute me 15:36:43 dom should now be muted 15:37:22 1. Standards Progression 15:37:22 2. Infrastructure 15:37:22 3. Community Outreach 15:37:22 4. Developer Portal 15:38:30 +Mike_Champion 15:41:29 key dates: 15:41:30 30 Aug 15:41:32 20 Sep 15:43:00 "There was another suggestion: if there have been previous efforts to 15:43:00 do similar things (e.g., www-talk or XGs), why did those not succeed, 15:43:00 or why do we think this iteration has a better chance of succeeding. 15:43:00 " 15:44:50 hhalpin has joined #newstd 15:45:43 Zakim, who's on the phone? 15:45:43 On the phone I see Ian, Larry_Rosen, dom (muted), Thomas, Arnaud_LeHors (muted), Mike_Champion 15:46:32 Zakim, what's the code? 15:46:32 the conference code is 63978 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), hhalpin 15:46:47 +??P7 15:46:52 Zakim, ??P7 is hhalpin 15:46:52 +hhalpin; got it 15:47:02 Zakim, mute me 15:47:02 hhalpin should now be muted 15:48:28 q? 15:50:10 On individual participation v. support 15:50:14 I always thought that the idea was that the membership model was going to stay more or less put for WGs, but that the new Community Group process (that may percolate later into WGs) would be open. 15:51:18 +q 15:51:26 +1 new idea forum running real fast 15:51:28 [re whether www-talk ever was what we're trying to do with the WIF: www-talk was where was proposed, fwiw http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0182.html; that's also one of the places where Mark Nottingham announced its intent to work on the well-known location IETF draft ] 15:51:40 ack A 15:52:01 Arnaud: Look at what happened with HTML5....was developed externally and then brought to W3C. 15:52:15 ...in the HTML WG case, most people who were participating externally were invited into the WG 15:52:34 ...we have existing process on invited experts 15:52:42 q+ to talk about WG/IG model 15:53:07 q+ 15:53:14 ...invitation may not be completely open-ended; not necessarily at odds with what we do today. 15:53:15 ack me 15:53:15 Ian, you wanted to talk about WG/IG model 15:53:38 notes that rebranding www-talk the "Web Innovation Forum" might be an idea - www-talk back from the dead: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-talk/2010JulAug/ 15:53:52 www-talk has been dead for quite a while.... 15:54:18 Zakim, mute me 15:54:18 hhalpin was already muted, hhalpin 15:54:23 ack H 15:54:28 Zakim, unmute me 15:54:28 hhalpin was not muted, hhalpin 15:54:42 IJ: We need to be careful about artificial barriers as detriments to participation. 15:55:17 hhalpin: we did get innovation by opening up HTML WG; one way to look at this is to say that W3C wants to get innovation but that the process can still work for standards in the future 15:55:35 ....the nice thing about the proposed community group is that it allows work to percolate up to WGs 15:56:00 lrosen: what are people saying has gone wrong with the HTML process? 15:56:51 The HTML5 experience was seen as a bit of "one-off" thing, then the question is how could have had the W3C met their needs earlier? 15:57:23 IJ: Not sure "how HTML WG is going" is in scope. Agree "why went outside W3C" is in scope. 15:57:55 mike: one reason was that w3c bet on xml horse; minority view went elsewhere. 15:58:29 ...we need to be sure we state clearly in the proposal that dissent is ok 15:59:24 +1 15:59:37 q+ 16:00:00 ack tlr 16:01:11 tlr: back to diverging opinions question....there will be a piece of process nurturing dissent. Welcoming to all work. But that doesn't guarantee Membership support in standards working groups 16:01:36 q+ re: html5 participation 16:01:52 tlr: Question of when does something move from fringe to non-fringe....where are the governance mechanism 16:02:13 right. I think that needs to be said explicitly 16:02:24 q+ 16:02:39 ack I 16:02:39 Ian, you wanted to discuss html5 participation 16:03:51 q+ web innovation forum and ostatus 16:04:00 q+ 16:04:14 Zakim, mute me 16:04:14 hhalpin should now be muted 16:04:47 ack lr 16:05:24 lrosen: Analogy from apache process - once the board initiates a project, the project is on its own 16:06:03 ...software team has a 3-month reporting requirement 16:06:18 ...when the team can't detal with its own problems, the board steps in to help 16:08:42 q+ 16:08:46 ack hh 16:08:51 Zakim, unmute me 16:08:51 hhalpin was not muted, hhalpin 16:09:40 ack tlr 16:10:37 tlr: Larry, do you think we need a community-driven governance question at all in W3C, or just community groups? 16:10:57 lrosen: I think you need a community governance model; need moderation of lists, for example. 16:11:10 ...in apache, we require anyone who participates to sign a contributor agreement. 16:11:15 ...implies a commitment of IPR 16:11:27 ...the OWF CLA serves a similar function in a standards context 16:11:52 ...there needs to be rules 16:11:57 ...each group needs to be able to do its thing 16:12:33 tlr: Those sound more like "How you behave" issues 16:12:48 ...I was referring more to "how W3C makes the decision what to take into the standards track" 16:12:49 i.e. chartering and scope, tlr? 16:13:28 chartering, scope, architecture 16:13:38 and the scope of the consensus 16:13:39 lrosen: My preference is for community groups to operate via consensus...there are votes and opportunity to veto 16:14:10 ...in Apache there are, as I understand, teams that have lots of active discussion...I've not seen it rise to the board level. 16:14:16 Zakim, mute me 16:14:18 hhalpin should now be muted 16:14:45 lrosen: The second point relates to something from an Arnaud email: whether at the end of the day, when the spec is published, people will sign an IPR commitment. 16:14:59 ...that's not been tested in the standards world, but seems to be accepted in the apache world. 16:15:31 mike: this notion of the community as the center of consensus is the key here. 16:16:01 ...the problem we are solving is when we had to get consensus across the entire community (with Director and TAG), that tended to drive people not on board with that consensus away. 16:16:26 ...we are saying here that we will enable communities (even dissenting) to have discussions 16:16:46 ...but when it moves to Rec, then they need to get the additional buy-in, but that's a value-add from the rec track 16:17:24 ...I don't think the community process threatens the traditional model; it's a value add. 16:17:55 -Thomas 16:17:56 zakim, call thomas-781 16:17:56 ok, tlr; the call is being made 16:17:58 +Thomas 16:19:05 q? 16:19:26 http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community 16:20:16 q+ 16:20:50 ack lrosen 16:21:08 +q 16:21:18 lrosen: What do you mean by moderation....in apache we grant committer status to people we trust 16:21:18 zakim, unmute me 16:21:18 Arnaud_LeHors was not muted, Arnaud 16:22:46 ack Arnaud 16:23:26 q+ to recap again 16:24:59 Arnaud: Another candidate name : Community Proposal Forum 16:25:12 Arnaud: I have some concerns about degree of staff involvement. 16:25:48 ...depends on level of automation involved. 16:27:16 IJ: Anticipate lots of automation; scalability a key to success 16:27:46 Mike: We want the fora to be open and technically focused. Some people use them as soapbox. 16:27:53 ...discussions can get out of hand. 16:28:25 ...I don't think that this will be a big problem; need to be sure that fora are welcoming to all 16:32:30 hhalpin has joined #newstd 16:32:39 Arnaud: Regarding staff moderating the main forum...that's fine. My big concern is moderation is moderating community groups. 16:33:04 q+ transition from forum to community group 16:33:19 q+ 16:33:21 ack me 16:33:21 Ian, you wanted to recap again 16:33:24 ack h 16:34:06 hhalpin: What are requirements to transition to community group 16:35:36 so it's more of individual endorsement? 16:36:07 i.e. otherwise people vote "no"? I'd say "individual endorsement" 16:36:54 hhalpin: yes, community groups have individual endorsement...need a certain level of endorsement. 16:37:19 hhalpin: endorsement is "just yes' but voting is "yes/no" 16:37:20 q+ 16:37:34 ack lrosen 16:37:48 IJ: Should transition to community group be "by endorsement" or "by vote"? 16:38:08 lrosen: By endorsement, what one means is "We endorse the formation of a community group" 16:38:19 lrosen: Maybe call it "topic" rather than "scope" 16:38:37 ...we're going to set up a group for that...we'll forward them to the extant group 16:38:44 ...and one of the things we have to do in creating a community group 16:38:58 ...need a community group management committee 16:39:06 ...they build community 16:39:14 ..and get commitments 16:39:16 ...and report 16:39:38 ..and lack of activity (or of a report) may be a sign to close the group 16:40:07 q? 16:40:43 q+ 16:40:46 ack me 16:41:31 dom: we shouldn't set the process in stone 16:41:36 ...need experience first 16:41:45 zakim, mute me 16:41:45 dom should now be muted 16:41:47 ...and don't automate until we have more experience. 16:41:52 q? 16:42:22 Question: How are Community Supporters chosen? 16:43:09 I'd say experienced standards people who are interested in the topic, not necessarily W3C Team. 16:43:14 q+ 16:43:16 ack lrosen 16:43:24 IJ: How about volunteers (motivated people)? 16:43:40 lrosen: some apache experience...we have about 300 projects; board of 8 volunteers. 16:43:50 ...each member of the board is the "shepherd" of a large number of projects 16:44:10 ...ensure reporting done 16:44:18 ...dedicated line of communication, but the shepherds don't do a lot 16:44:22 ..there are also "mentors" 16:44:34 ...mentors are listening on the list; their main role is to ensure people know the process 16:44:43 ...and there's a self selected group of contributors 16:44:59 ...the board needs to acknowledge the receipt of a contributor agreement. 16:45:31 ...you don't want to control...want to keep lightweight 16:45:34 q? 16:46:23 lrosen: There are also 300 members of the foundation who speak up where they want; they are privileged and get to vote for the board. 16:46:55 mike: +1 to what larry said. From what I observed in Apache, I think it would be a good model for this sort of thing 16:47:57 ...community owns the work; they report periodically; there are mentors who are there both for advice and to help move things forward and to give consent that there is an acceptable level of community dynamic. 16:48:34 Zakim, unmute me 16:48:36 hhalpin was not muted, hhalpin 16:49:08 hhalpin: there needs to be a way to contact staff easily. 16:49:26 IETF also uses "shepherds" 16:49:30 ...in terms with mentoring, I think that we need people with standards experience, and those who are good at managing communities 16:49:42 (we could probably start with a set of hand-picked volunteers; overtime, this could be volunteers-based work, possibly with a community-based election of there are more volunteers than people wanted?) 16:49:46 hhalpin: we could do an open call for volunteers. 16:49:58 (mostly as people who help the ADs with their duties; similar to what Dom just said) 16:50:23 IJ: I am hearing "volunteers" 16:50:29 (with some staff) 16:50:38 mike: Energy and enthusiasm count for a lot here 16:51:54 Question: We need experienced editors. How do we bring new editors to the community? 16:52:13 IJ: Heard one concrete proposal - look for editors explicitly through charter veiw 16:52:18 s/veiw/view 16:52:42 (is this in scope for this tf?) 16:52:48 IJ: Should be ok in community groups....but how to bring editors into WGs? 16:53:36 Arnaud: Can take conservative approach and ask people who've demonstrated their skills. Or you can allow anyone to try and see if it works; if not, roll it back 16:54:46 ack me 16:54:53 zakim, mute me 16:54:53 dom should now be muted 16:55:42 Homework: Please answer orange questions on the list by the end of the week. 16:55:46 zakim, close this item 16:55:46 agendum 1 closed 16:55:47 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 16:55:48 zakim, take up item 2 16:55:48 2. starting up the web innovation forum [from Ian] 16:55:50 agendum 2. "starting up the web innovation forum" taken up [from Ian] 16:56:36 ACTION Dom to answer orange questions in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community on the list by the end of the week 16:56:36 Created ACTION-6 - answer orange questions in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community on the list by the end of the week [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2010-08-30]. 16:58:21 Seems like blog with some moderated aggregation is the way to go. 16:58:51 hhalpin: consensus seems to be moving in direction of blog (possibly with moderated aggregation) 16:59:11 ...not sure about status net in the short term; would need to run by systems team 16:59:29 hhalpin: I'm happy to take an action item re: statusnet and aggregation of activity streams 16:59:46 ...blog + aggregation seems like the way to go 17:00:08 q+ to say that before tools we need a community 17:00:11 ...some conversations may be long-lasting...maybe need www-talk as well 17:00:39 ...one issue with blog is that they are bursty...may not be able to sustain discussion 17:00:42 ack dom 17:00:43 dom, you wanted to say that before tools we need a community 17:00:50 mike: blog posts can lead to new blog posts 17:01:01 dom: I agree that blogging is a good way to get constructive discussions to start. 17:01:07 http://status.net/ 17:01:15 ...one point that we shouldn't lose focus on - any forum that we set up will only be useful if people are using it. 17:01:46 q+ 17:01:47 ...who will subscribe to this blog (where anything could be posted)? 17:02:01 ...who will be invited... 17:02:05 "The world is it's own best model" - we need to launch the blog/forum and see who comes....I'd be pro a blog+a web-based discussion forum for extended discussion. 17:02:17 dom: ..what structure will promote discussions they have already started 17:02:19 ack lrosen 17:02:23 q+ lrosen 17:02:32 Arnaud: the issue of whether to open it now or not.... 17:02:47 ...we don't have back end of proposal - moving to community group 17:02:53 zakim, mute me 17:02:53 dom should now be muted 17:03:04 Well, if we launch the blog in say, Sept or October, then the group would only have to wait a month or so perhaps... 17:03:57 Arnaud: I think there are plenty of tools.... 17:04:08 Zakim, mute me 17:04:08 hhalpin should now be muted 17:04:17 ...I would guess the systems team will be aware of tools. 17:04:33 ACTION: Harry to talk to systems team about status.net 17:04:33 Created ACTION-7 - Talk to systems team about status.net [on Harry Halpin - due 2010-08-30]. 17:05:47 ack lrosen 17:06:31 lrosen: +1 to using the new open forum to continue discussions on tools, 17:06:34 [I think what we need is: streamlining W3C public accounts and opening them to anybody; opening up a blog open to anybody (but with a team of moderators); remind of www-talk and esw.w3.org and get it rolling] 17:07:01 lrosen: It's really easy to get volunteers...hard to get people to do work. 17:08:03 IJ: I am hearing blog + aggregation 17:08:43 Topic: Next meeting: 17:08:46 lrosen has joined #newstd 17:08:56 IJ: I will take "next meeting" to the list 17:09:06 rrsagent, make minutes 17:09:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/08/23-newstd-minutes.html Ian 17:09:08 -Thomas 17:09:10 Zakim, unmute me 17:09:10 hhalpin should no longer be muted 17:09:10 -dom 17:09:12 -Larry_Rosen 17:09:14 -Ian 17:09:14 -Arnaud_LeHors 17:09:17 -hhalpin 17:09:49 -Mike_Champion 17:09:50 Team_(newstd)15:30Z has ended 17:09:52 Attendees were Ian, Larry_Rosen, dom, Thomas, Arnaud_LeHors, Mike_Champion, hhalpin 17:10:28 re: name, I think we should use "Community" as a common label to tied the different pieces together 17:10:43 rather than "Web" which adds nothing 17:11:39 and Innovations may not be accurate, for all we know someone might propose to work on something that's been in existence for a long time and just never standardized 17:12:22 I had initially thought of Community Forum but that's too broad 17:12:37 I think Community Proposal Forum fits the bill :) 17:12:53 anyway, have a good day 17:17:23 thanks! 17:17:24 :0 17:38:14 +1 Arnaud's comment....maybe "Community Innovation Forum" 17:38:19 the *new* www-talk :) 17:41:01 I've changed it to: 17:41:04 Community Proposal Forum 17:41:19 For $50K I"ll rename it the harry halpin innovation forum 18:03:30 Arnaud has left #newstd