See also: IRC log
<emma> Previous: 2001-05-05 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/05/05-lld-minutes.html
<emma> Scribe: William
<emma> scirbenick: ww
<tbaker> scribenick: ww
<dvila> thanks antoine
do we accept the minutes from previeous telecon?
ACCEPTED
schedule for upcoming teleconferences until end of august because we are in process of requesting extension 3 months
scribe: final report...
... idea of transitioning to community group
... conferences are every two weeks in july and august
... still waiting for approval from w3c for extension
... shouldn't be an issue
... just waiting for process to be completed...
... when it is will inform on mailing list
... questions?
<kcoyle> having trouble with boston phone number: all circuits busy
scribe: suggest oto hand floor to
harry to introduce concept of community groups
... explain how we can transition, what would be the interest
and so on
harry: what's going on is that people can ... w3c is doing one of the larger porocess changes in last 5 years or de cade
<harry> http://www.w3.org/QA/2011/04/coming_soon_w3c_community_grou.html
harry: introduce more bottom up
process called community groups or business groups
... quick overview...
... official details are linked from ... blog post
... is aproved by w3c management and advisory board
<harry> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/
harry: to give broad
overview
... community groups are way for any kind of people w3c members
or not, to use w3c resources to create draft standards
<kcoyle> karen
harry: based on feedback from
incubator groups process
... IGs will be phased out
... all new groups will be WGs, business groups or community
groups
... community groups will be made on show of support...
... run until they are finished,... no defined ending
date
... working on standards and specs takes longer than you
think
... most groups have had to ask for extensions
<jodi> hmm...an "end date" has been quite helpful in focusing our work and justifying our scope
harry: and often not sure how
long it will take for specs to get adopted...
... general oveararching process... interesting as well... keep
work experimental until point where it is adopted enough that
it is justified to adopt as standard
... launched sometime in june... a dozen community groups
... too early for your schedule...
... but then it is possible for any incubator group to
transition into community group after charter expired
... community of interest groups optimised for
individualparticipation
<harry> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/final
harry: so what we've sort of done
is taken open web licenses and modified so it can work with w3c
license
... so what you have is license that allows individuals to do
non-asserts
... and you have a clear path to non-royalty status
... make everyone in CG sign lightweight non-patent-assert and
then spin into WG
... incubator groups and community groups expected to more or
less run themselves
... business groups provide higher staff connection
... because more w3c resources, minor fee if no w3c member orgs
involved
... w3c member becomes team contact
... so example of business group,,, oil and gas industry...
want to make rdf ovcab to model oil and gas...
... would like w3c staff help to do this...
... in crafting the vocabulary and helping put out information
about it
... that is the difference...
... community groups have no taff connectivity...
... business groups have more sstaff connectivity
... working groups have the most...
... any questions on community groups?
... expectation is when group is finished... would mail harry
or dan ... coralie
... and we would set up infrastructure for it
... and ask that a new scoping statement drawn up by
group
... scoping statement would be charter as CG
tbaker: i wanted to
clarify...
... first of all maybe you could just define what a non-assert
is
... but wanted to clarify....
... if i understand correctly... the purpose of this new way of
doing things is makeing it easy for individuals to
participate...
... but when i look at the community final agreement it looks
like an individual is being asked to say they can sign on
behalf of their employer...
... so i wanted to clarify to what extent they are taken as
individuals or representing their employers
harry: so actually two questions.
are they representing their employers?
... adn what is the legal bounds.?
... if employer is w3c member, obviously you should keep your
representative aware
... if you are not a member...
... if royalty free agreement... can as a company verify and
agree nto be bound not to assert patents rights... legally
binding way... agree not to ask for any sort of warranties by
implementors of the specs
... actually pretty strong...
... often means getting out the patent lawyers
... which can take years
... as an individual... certify that not any patents in the
spec
tbaker: looking at doc, "i
certify that i authorised on behalf of organisation below..."
"commitmentsof that organisation"
... is pretty strong
<edsu> tbaker++
harry: individuals may sign
pretending to sign as individuals... but could be problem in
patent-heavy space... so agree on behalf of employer
... this specification quite short compared to royalty free
...
... if you have more detailed questions, would have to refer to
w3c legal staff for point by point
... if you form ig, don't have to sign until decide to push
spec forward
tbaker: i see this as potential
issue...
... i think ... sometimes people participate in WGs ... more
than their employers realise
... because they are committe to whatever it s...
... i have a slight concern that people will hesitate when they
see this...\
... sgo up the line, get management involved, starts getting
more coomplicated
harry: if someone contributing whose management would not improve, to avoid patent problems...
<jodi> As digital library grows into CS territory, there certainly is potential for patent issues, IMO.
<jodi> less than elsewhere, of course!
harry: would be best to
participate ... not contribute text... even if they did... no
diffference between IG process if something you think would go
into a working draft, you'd have the same problem
... what this allows you to do is bulletproof yourself as early
as possible and give w3c higher assurances that things that
come out of WG can be a spec
... shouldn't be a showstopper but will forward to legall team
and ask for clarification
antoine: my question was about
scope of different groups, CGs vs. BGs... is there a formal
criterion that would classify into one or the other
category...
... my feeling is that library or wider cultural heritage group
is not so focused in some field of technology... looks a bit
like a business litmus test?...
harry: ultimately the only
difference is staff connectivity...
... so that's the litmus test about what is legally enforced as
regards to staff time
... reason why some groups wanted more staff time... outreach
and help with specs
... BGs aimed at business verticals...
... more of an internal question of how much connectivity you
want to staff
... more about fitting your neeeds than fitting a particular
kind of scoping
... exact same, real difference staff connectivity
... if you wanted to transition you could transition to
either
antoine: is it possible to transition frmo one to the other... if we start as CG and then think we need more W3C staff...
<emma> Comparison table of W3C groups : http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/#comparison
harry: we believe that probably
will be the case, but haven't had anybody do that yet...
haven't launched them yet
... whole point of process is less constraints...
... but don't want to lose the energy
<emma> zakim who's making noise ?
<GordonD> Gordon just joined
harry: there will be a community
council so that the chairs of CGs will have more regular
meetings with W3C staff to check in on a regular basis
... to clarify, the w3c does not want ... what we're going to
do to prevent that is to have regular meetings with
chairs...
... regular meetings to make sure groups are akien care of
<Zakim> emma, you wanted to ask about non member institutions
harry: people complaining that the charter system is hard, open-ended and experimental
emma: relatedly... question to confirm that CG seems to be suited to working for a community where lot of institutions that are not W3C members
<jodi> +1 to involvement without having to be W3C members or register as invited experts!
emma: lot of smaller institutions aren't able to become members... common in cultural heritage... CG very relevant for our community
<GordonD> +1
<edsu> jodi: concur
<dvila> +1
harry: practical level... more or
less open to individual and non-member orgs from the
beginning
... make more suited to your community
<antoine> +1
harry: with BG don't ask that every member pays a fee, just that enough tho pay for staff time, then everyone else in for free
emma: i see our participants are very happy about it
edsu: hi... i was ... i guess... just as a context for ... following on from tom's question
<antoine> but even the business group "funding" scheme could work for us as well
edsu: it would be very difficult for me to sign anything as an LOC employee with out getting the legal department involved
<emma> +1, edsu !
edsu: not patent lawyers... but
still a barrier... i could get through it but it would take
some time... so to say it is not a barrier.. i think lot of
people in similar situation
... you mentioned 12 to start in june, curious who they are,
some examples?
... also... that and BGs get extra staffing, can you provide
examples of what services staff would provide
harry: in order, not saying not a
barrier, saying it is less than signing full royalty-free
agreement
... large companies like yahoo won't sign such a thing
... these are lighter weight... have assurances they may
sign...
... for people like you, i would assume you could probably get
by without signing, just have to be careful... responsibility
of group to make sure patents don't slip in for future
spec
... if you become WG you have to put something you want to put
as a spec... by the time you make that suggestion you need to
have all contribuors to spec to have signed agreement
... so not barrier to joining the group...
... don't want situation where CG makes a spec and no patent
license involved and spec sneaks through
... if you have concerns W3cC legal to help clarify
edsu: concerned it would be a barrier... legal people need to talk to legal people, that's a barrier
harry: same point... depends on
what group is doing...
... overview report? wouldn't require patent non-asserts
... if vocabulary? if you feel vocab can be used by libraries
need to make sure no patents
<jodi> +1 to clarity
edsu: needs to be clear what
someone has to do to be involved in community
... needs to be clearer than it is now
harry: if produces spec... will have to sign... to become WD
edsu: when they want to push it forward that's when they woul have to sign...
harry: give patent lawyers years
to go through patents...
... strong commitment helps companies like ibm relax a
bit...
... to go back to other point...
... launching open digital rights, micropayments, html5...
federated social web... usdl
... wide variety
<tbaker> Harry: When a spec produced by the Community becomes a candidate for getting W3C status -- that is the point at which non-asserts need to be assigned. (My interpretation.)
harry: was your final point?
edsu: staffing, what services w3c would provide to BGs?
harry: staffing ... would
essentially deal with ability of groups to do large amounts of
outreach
... e.g. w3c maintains giant database of industry... if you
want everybody to use your spec... want to make sure all the
players are at the table...
... requires busdev...
... another example is liason... would like work to be part of
gameplan for rdf stack or html5 stack or etc... requires a lot
of work for w3c staff to integrate your group
... final is industry verticals... lots of healthcare
lifesciences wanting to e.g. produce owl version of snomed, not
owl experts and want to make sure it stays consistent woth
owl... requires staff to do homework and make sure it fits...
lot of time commitment
... a bit different for each group... maybe at some point this
might come up...
<jodi> avoiding getting "silo'd" by being a non-profit interest vs. business interest is important going forward
edsu: difference between a BG and a WG
<jodi> to avoid the sorts of divergence the library has had from IT best practices in the past decades
harry: WG has devoted staff time.
s.t. if you are a W3C employee some percentage of your time is
devoted to shepherding that work through the W3cC process
... with BG smaller amount of time
... with BG very much more ad-hoc... we want to push vocab out,
then get staff to help
<emma> @jodi I don't think it's the case here, the difference is not about being non-profit, but about the amount of work the group is asking from W3C
<edsu> sorry to monopolize time :(
harry: with some BG may require every telecon... but that might mean rejigging of the fee...
<jodi> emma: I understand. My worry is that less staff attention NOT be less attention from people following the IT state of the art
<jodi> edsu: thanks for asking good questions for all of us! not monopolizing IMO! :)
harry: need to sit down with
management and figure out what staff time is involved. less
than a WG more than 0.
... some CG say, really could have used some help... now if
they do help, they are doing it as an individual basis not as
their job...
<emma> @jodi do you think that's the case re: the XG ?
<tbaker> @edsu, you are tasking good questions
harry: we want if certain key points come up for group, BG wants staff to devote some time to it...
emma: any other questions
<jodi> congrats harry! :)
harry: one or two things... i have to run... my brother is getting married tomorrow.. need a suit
<edsu> ww++
harry: the key is you guys will
be the first group to transition after initial transition
period
... might be few bumps because nobody's done it before
<antoine> :-)
harry: email us, with some notice... and we'll work it out... that would be good... and we do want to see final report done
<antoine> thanks, harry!
<tbaker> Harry: Ideally inform of intent to transition at least one month before (extended) end of charter.
harry: that would be great
<edsu> harry++ # thanks!
<tbaker> thank you, harry!
<dvila> thank you harry!
emma: thank you, we will continue to discuss and send questions
harry: .we'll be in bilbao may take a bit of time...
everyone: thank you
emma: few minutes more... think
it's interesting to transition to CG
... invited harry because seems to be straightforward process
to transition from IG to CG
... IGs won't exist any more
... just extend charter... gives us some some time to think
about it
... you guys what do you think, is it relevant
kcoyle: this is complicated. i
feel that we are today as an IG is ...
... individuals and i don't know to what extent people feel
they are representing their organistation
... if we become a CG we have to have a closer connection to
library community
<jodi> kcoyle: do you mean that the W3C isn't close enough to the library world?
kcoyle: how does the w3c library community group interact with library community?
emma: probably added value of new group would be to create a community taht would go beyond libraries and include archives and museums...
<dvila> +1 to add archives and museums
<GordonD> +1 for a, l, m community group
emma: maybe there are other
organisations that can make that bridge...
... w3c has web focus, linked data but web in general that's
why interesting to have CG within W3C
kcoyle: been an interesting
group
... concern is library community already has foci...
... places where its community interacts
... so how does this interact with those?
... how do we integrate these activities with ongoing ones
emma: key question for community
ed i think that's a good question to ask
edsu: came to mind was this
report that harry is interested in seeing
... when it gets published ... for this IG to communicate
outwords... to other foci...
... communities of people that go to these things... maybe it
pops up on their radar...
... people in this IG are active in other communities...
... area where we could bridge different communities and do a
bit more cross-pollination
... emma was saying libraries and museums and archives could
share a bit more with a web focus
... it could work
... i'm glad tom brought up what he did
... depending how they spin the legal side of it it could be
difficult
... not just for me but for anybody i imagine that has to sign
something that says they're speaking for their institution
emma: actually you as LOC are more representing your institution than an invited expert
edsu: i guess you're right... but
idea of these CGs are to lower the bar for non-member
... kcoyle would it be harder for you?
kcoyle: not for me but i could see that it would be for members of larger institutions that aren't members already
edsu: nice thing about w3c
members is that it's already done... but people who aren't
members... going to have to ... go through the legal
process...
... to just participate...
<edsu> +1 to that
kcoyle: another comment i have is if we move to a CG where we might actually be a development.. .then we have to get more library vendors involved
<dvila> good point
<jodi> +1 for involving library vendors
edsu: easier for them... wouldn't have to commit to being memebers
<edsu> scribenick: edsu
ww: it seems like signing these things towards the end of a lifecycle of a bit of work, isn't that a bit dangerous...if a a business tries to sneak some stuff into some work and then decides not to sign
kcoyle: it does happen
<ww> kcoyle: something having to do with ebooks...
<scribe> scribenick: ww
<antoine> maybe worth forwarding that point to W3C!
<edsu> antoine: agreed
emma: anyone wanting to make
another comment? if not... suggestion would be those of you who
are attending the LODLAM summit in june maybe you can discuss
this with opeople at summit an at other institutions...
... probably we need other people joining if we want to be a
CG
antoine: just a quick not... karen and william's point interesting... maybe send an email... would not expect this to happen but maybe it could be interesting
emma: other business?
tbaker: suggest that on next call
we want to assign reviewers for various sections
... antuo emma you agree with that? if you do that it would be
good if groups working on particular sections could get them
into a shape where they could go out for review...
... not final shape, im sure we'll have additional discussion,
that's why we are extending the charter... but in shape where
we could assign reviewers next week
<kai> sorry, have to leave timely. bye :-)
<scribe> ACTION: section owners try to be ready for reviewers next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-lld-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: send an email on the list to ask people to be ready [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-lld-minutes.html#action02]
antoine: if something is ready
before, circulate on list
... kim asks that when we are ready we send him an email
emma: thank you everyone
<antoine> s/send an a email/chairs to send an email
<dvila> thank you everyone
<jodi> tbaker: yup
<GordonD> Tom: we do
AJDOURNED
<jneubert> bye
<jodi> tbaker: be back in 2 min
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/becase/because/ Succeeded: s/inspired/expired/ Succeeded: s/indiciddual /individual/ Succeeded: s/taff/staff/ Succeeded: s/???/coralie/ Succeeded: s/particibpagte/participate/ Succeeded: s/emplioyers/employers/ Succeeded: s/correctlu/correctly/ Succeeded: s/oft e/of the/ Succeeded: s/commitmenmts /commitments/ Succeeded: s/lisght/slight/ Succeeded: s/test/litmus test?/ FAILED: s/send an a email/chairs to send an email/ Found Scribe: William WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <William> ... Found ScribeNick: ww Found ScribeNick: edsu Found ScribeNick: ww ScribeNicks: ww, edsu Default Present: emma, antoine, +44.194.346.aaaa, monica, tbaker, ww, jeff_, edsu, +1.423.463.aabb, kefo, rsinger, GordonD, +1.330.289.aacc, marcia, kai, +1.646.266.aadd, dvila, +49.4.aaee, jneubert, jodi, kcoyle Present: emma antoine +44.194.346.aaaa monica tbaker ww jeff_ edsu +1.423.463.aabb kefo rsinger GordonD +1.330.289.aacc marcia kai +1.646.266.aadd dvila +49.4.aaee jneubert jodi kcoyle Regrets: Lars Kim Uldis Peter michael Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011May/0031.html Got date from IRC log name: 12 May 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-lld-minutes.html People with action items: owners section send try[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]