W3C Community Groups introduction - Community council -- 15 Jun 2011

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

<trackbot> If you want to associate this channel with an existing Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel with #channel' (where #channel is the name of default channel for the group)

<shepazu> trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

<trackbot> If you want to associate this channel with an existing Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel with #channel' (where #channel is the name of default channel for the group)

<inserted> scribenick: hhalpin

Should be CONF1.

<manu> +1 to walkthrough as introduction to CG process

because I do not public-council@w3.org

<manu> Here's the link : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-council/

Intros

If people can, type your name and the name of your community group in IRC after you are done talking

<Ian> ontology, lexicalization

<Kristian> Kristian Sons, DFKI, Declarative 3D

<Ian> Tom: Library linked data -> CG

<Ian> ...audio

<Ian> manu: payment

<manu> http://payswarm.com/

<Ian>

W3C will launch Community Group late June->early July

Readwriteweb article

taking advantage of fact that all of you have stepped up

<manu> +1 to beta test

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/src/

<koalie> W3C Launches Community Groups to Help Create Web Standards

these are our CSS and HTML templates

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/src/community_business_groupHomepage.html

an index of the pages

<koalie> Ian: Please do not disseminate this page yet.

primary starting point for system

<Ian> w3.org/community

you can join group/support groups/propose new groups

this is the main page for the effort

I would like to talk about "Integrating payments in Web infrastructure", then you click on "proposed group" and then people see it.

Its a simple process.

It's a simple button push with name

of group, description, etc.

mailback loop for public account

when counter goes up to 5 you automagically get infrastructure

(in future)

in short term, we plan on people with trusted accounts to approve groups.

if you show up, and you want to have discussion over your proposal to refine

<Ian> W3C Forum

we will have a forum to start that discussion - that's the W3C Forum, will be a blog

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/src/communitygroupHomepage.html

that page shows the tooling

for the default groups

and groups outside the W3C should also be host their own tools, some outside w3.org

so you can keep using your wiki somewhere else, etc.

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/src/

its a two step IPR polciy

derivied from OWF policy

so you sign a "contributor agreement"

for anything I as an individual contribute, it's avaialble on these terms

we have struck a balance between the uselessness of individual patent commitments

and the own contributions

to make it easy to join

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/src/join_group_employee.html

we have four join pages depending on your affliation, as that requires different patent commitments

member employee:

what a hassle to get my AC rep to fill out this form

"I don't even know who my AC rep is!"

since IPR commitment is so light, would you accept engineers making commitments, this didn't work.

Why don't we queue up commitments from engineers, and we queue them up and send them to AC rep

<koalie> [this process is fantastic]

AC Rep form is what you have now

there's a little optimization that lets the AC Rep do ONE form rather than three for each engineer

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/Help/Account/Request/Merged

The ink is really tremendously wet on this one...

this one simplifies the account management

so imagine the group working for a while

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/src/newPublication.html

\me w3cleaks

brand new scheme for publishing stuff

we're going to launch without this quite working

this provides URI to publicaiton

add editors etc.

the system will announce it on groups page

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/src/updatePublication.html

report is out system

out of system

at some point group says they're done

then we call for "final specification commiments"

this signals the communty that this is a stable draft

grabs full-text commitments over final draft

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/src/licensing_commitments.html

(thinking maybe a list of "people who have not given their commitments" :) would be perhaps controversial but could help)

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/src/final_specification_commitment.html

so this allows community to apply pressure over licensing commitments

to people who haven't.

then they make their final commitment

at end of day

then we can tell when everyone has made commitments, which would allow us to speed up the transition to a W3C Working Group

we're looking at charter generator etc.

send it to AC for review possibly with shorter review cycle

now its a WG

(maybe)

<manu> How many people from the community can go across to the Working Group? Is it pretty typical from the standpoint of how it happens now (balance of Member companies and Invited Experts)?

there exists buttons to leave group, etc.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about publications, where they show up on W3C, how they're titled, etc.

manu: for example, think of web payments spec - we'll use some tools like respec
... each spec will have current status on it, etc, probably some changes to respec
... when its published, it goes to W3C space
... where does community group specs go?
... not /TR I assume?

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/src/reports.html

one spec per group

<manu> We have an issue w/ one spec per group... some of the work we're doing require one spec per vocabulary, one spec for discovery, and another spec for PaySwarm.

we will have pub rules per spec

but no real pubrules right now - but we want it public, on our site, etc.

we do not want confusion over status of our document

so we'll likely end up with a community group template

similar to the W3C Rec templates

we are working on that kind of template now

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about how we can present W3C's involvement.

manu: how to we represent W3C messaging to companies, people may get confused between Working Group and Community Group process?

we will have a FAQ to help explain what it is, and that it is not on the Rec Track.

i.e. the difference between Community Groups and Working Groups

shepazu: what kinds of tools?

mercurial, wikis, etc. we have other ideas for more social web tools but not quite ready for launch

we're open for augmenting the toolset

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about one spec per group constraint.

companies in general enjoy not having to make decisions on patents

but one of the cost is rechartering

when new deliverables are added

as companies rather reasonably do not want their patent scope to expand dynamically

community group IPR is oriented towards specs, not scope.

commitments don't kick in until spec exists

group works on more than one document

if people haven't signed commitments on particular specs

we want to avoid that confusion

in first iteration we're going to try to have one spec per group.

so we know who contributed what to spec, i.e. looking at archives

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say that one spec per group may be problematic for Web Payments...

we know it's risky but we're trying to be flexible

manu: payswarm spec calls out to four different Web vocabularies

<shepazu> (I wonder if we can have "shared" mailing lists / forum for different groups

we need this documents in the system

We are trying to solve this problem, but clar it's not perfect suggestion

<Zakim> shepazu, you wanted to suggest model for manu

shepazu: lots of people in a WG go to particular topics
... people have complained in past that they are interested only in one particular spec, how to filter though stuff
... so maybe this will be more versatile and natural

Ian: if you are part of a group you are part of group

<manu> I'm concerned that multiple groups may lead to "too many mailing list subscriptions exhaustion"

Ian: but unclear if one-spec per group and how socially groups work may fit in with IPR
... we are happy to make changes as things progress

<Zakim> F1LT3R_, you wanted to enquire about Blog features...

FILT3R: what are use-cases for blog, features, how it works
... news items are blog posts

<shepazu> (I find myself more exhausted by amount of traffic on a list, rather than number of lists, but YMMV)

FILT3R: some published as document
... automatically, but we can also use it to get reviews etc.
... discussion tool etc.

Ian: various communcations tools, stuff like Twitter vs. discussion forum software (WordPress plugin, OStatus) and so far we'll try to keep it simple as regards WordPress blog
... so people can keep posting to the blog without a W3C account etc.

<Zakim> johnmccrae, you wanted to ask will there be support for organizing telcos and meetings for the community group?

Ian: Tracker, Zakim, RRSAgent, but we have issues with providing telecon bridges
... no for Commuity Groups, but yes for Business Group has paying customer
... as we can't scale our current telecon bridge for the large amount of telecons we are expecting

<Ian> +1

<koalie> scribenick: koalie

Harry: Reminder that people may use Skype
... it's just telcon ports they can't get.
... Happy to take questions on the mailing list. About meeting regularly on the phone. Weekly?

Ian: I'm not sure we need weekly. When we're ready, however, we might need to meet more frequently

Harry: I don't want to do the "giant doodle dance" all of the time.

<Ian> +1 to finding a "good time" that is "semi-reserved"

Ian: Please do send comments and questions

harry: last bit of homework,
... please, folks, send me names and title of group
... [to do coordination and merge some groups if needed]

<hhalpin> cc public-council@w3.org

<shepazu> public-council@w3.org http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-council/

<hhalpin> Meeting adjourned

[thanks all]

- DRAFT -

W3C Community Groups introduction - Community council
15 Jun 2011

Attendees

Contents

Intros

one spec per group

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

- DRAFT -

W3C Community Groups introduction - Community council 15 Jun 2011

Attendees

Contents

Intros

one spec per group

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

W3C Community Groups introduction - Community council
15 Jun 2011