From W3C eGovernment Wiki
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:01:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #egov 14:01:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/20-egov-irc 14:01:59 <sandro> zakim, this is egov 14:01:59 <Zakim> ok, sandro; that matches T&S_EGOV()9:00AM 14:02:03 <ChrisBeer> Morning all 14:02:17 <sandro> RRSAgent, make log public 14:02:20 <Daniel_Bennett> Good morning all 14:02:44 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose, what is the format for scribe again? 14:03:04 <sandro> like this: speaker_name: what they said 14:03:25 <Daniel_Bennett> I thought I had volunteered 14:03:38 <sandro> scribe: Daniel_Bennett 14:03:49 <Daniel_Bennett> what is the substitution format again 14:03:58 <sandro> like this: s/old/new 14:04:03 <Daniel_Bennett> thanks 14:04:23 <Daniel_Bennett> oooh vintage high tech 14:04:44 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call? 14:04:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, +1.202.449.aaaa, +1.703.880.aabb, ??P12 <sandro> Topic: Convene 14:04:51 <Zakim> + +1.202.564.aacc 14:04:56 <Daniel_Bennett> aaaa is Daniel Bennett 14:05:16 <sandro> zakim, ??P12 is josema 14:05:16 <Zakim> +josema; got it 14:05:29 <Daniel_Bennett> Please announce names before speaking once we are underway. Thanks 14:05:42 <sandro> zakim, aabb is Cory 14:05:42 <Zakim> +Cory; got it 14:05:47 <josema> zakim, aaaa is Daniel Bennett 14:05:48 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aaaa is Daniel Bennett', josema 14:05:50 <Daniel_Bennett> 202-449-aaaa is Daniel Bennett 14:05:52 <sandro> zakim, aacc is Brand 14:05:52 <Zakim> +Brand; got it 14:05:56 <josema> zakim, aaaa is Daniel_Bennett 14:05:56 <Zakim> +Daniel_Bennett; got it 14:06:04 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call? 14:06:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, Daniel_Bennett, Cory, josema, Brand 14:06:13 <Daniel_Bennett> Agenda for today? 14:06:39 <josema> none, AFAIK -- chairs fault :( 14:07:28 <ChrisBeer> short meeting then? 14:07:36 <Zakim> + +1.509.464.aadd 14:07:41 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/track/actions/open 14:07:46 <Daniel_Bennett> jose: agenda, pending issues, then survey discussion 14:07:49 <sandro> zakim, aadd is Rachel 14:07:49 <Zakim> +Rachel; got it 14:08:16 <Daniel_Bennett> please announce names <sandro> Topic: Action Items 14:08:27 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: open action items 14:08:40 <sandro> close action-71 14:08:40 <trackbot> ACTION-71 Try get RDFa Gov use cases on TPAC agenda closed 14:08:47 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: yes, lets get rid of old ones that are not active anymore 14:09:17 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: item 76 is always active and we should leave open 14:09:35 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: action 3 is old 14:09:46 <sandro> zakim, who is here? 14:09:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, Daniel_Bennett, Cory, josema, Brand, Rachel 14:09:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, Cory, Daniel_Bennett, josema, ChrisBeer, hughb, trackbot, sandro 14:10:24 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: should we go to results? <sandro> Topic: Upcoming Events 14:10:46 <Daniel_Bennett> please announce name when speaking (except Jose) 14:10:46 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Meetings 14:11:09 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: Feb 3 and Feb 17th meetings. 14:12:55 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: NextGov 2.0 / O'Reilly conference panel deadline has passed. FOSE meeting in late march. 1105 group is doing another Open Gov, like the one in July. 14:13:17 <ChrisBeer> 1105 group? 14:13:30 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett: PDF (Personal Democracy Forum) was in Europe, but is back in NYC next -- earlybird prices. TechPresident.com I think. 14:13:54 <Daniel_Bennett> thanks Sandro 14:14:32 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: Karen took care of the Gov 2.0 expo 14:14:50 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: and something was submitted for FOSE 14:15:09 <Daniel_Bennett> Rachel: FOSE was expected. my bio is on their site 14:15:28 <Zakim> +[LC] 14:15:48 <sandro> zakim, LC is Ed_Summers 14:15:48 <Zakim> +Ed_Summers; got it 14:16:03 <Daniel_Bennett> Ed Summers: from Library of Congress 14:16:32 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: one is coming up in a few weeks and I will send it around 14:16:48 <edsu> edsu has joined #egov 14:16:54 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: Next topic now? 14:16:59 <Daniel_Bennett> +1 Daniel 14:17:07 <Daniel_Bennett> +1 Jose 14:17:10 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/meeting/2010-01-06 14:17:13 <edsu> Zakim: LC is edsu 14:17:24 <edsu> Zakim, LC is edsu 14:17:24 <Zakim> sorry, edsu, I do not recognize a party named 'LC' 14:17:30 <Daniel_Bennett> welcomes Ed to Channel <sandro> Topic: Website 14:18:18 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: About Wikipedia pages? 14:18:42 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: Someone was working on staging the entry 14:18:49 <Daniel_Bennett> it was Joe Carmel 14:18:50 <edsu> sandro: cheers 14:19:27 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: we were going to do that on Wikimedia W3C site 14:19:36 <Cory> I have some material for the web pages, as soon as I know where to put it 14:19:46 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: web site and provenance. check. <sandro> Topic: Projects 14:19:53 <josema> Survey Results: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2010Jan/0023 14:19:55 <ChrisBeer> I think it stalled slighty as chairs were to determine governance/workflow around this 14:20:22 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: we chairs have been slow to respond. 14:20:54 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: a good thing is the number of participants, over 59 people 14:21:08 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: this level of response is impressive 14:21:33 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: second good thing is the level of volunteering to help 14:22:07 <ChrisBeer> Given the numbers - have we thought about how best to do this collaboratively? 14:22:10 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: we should bring up priorities or if we should divide the group 14:22:21 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: ? 14:23:03 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: any opinions on this, parallel vs. priority? 14:23:10 <Daniel_Bennett> Cory: prioritize 14:23:56 <Daniel_Bennett> Daniel: pick number of groups, say 2, and then prioritize 14:23:59 <ChrisBeer> The only issue I see with parrallel is 59 people hitting a single list on 10 projects is going to get messy. But combo of both - there is overlap 14:24:35 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: forgot the overlap issue. what is the breakdown? 14:25:12 <Daniel_Bennett> Rachel: there is a difference in level of interest. I picked more than one. 14:25:52 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: I use the 4 and 5 ratings as the level of interest necessary to do more meetings. 14:26:11 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: there is the question of leadership 14:26:16 <ChrisBeer> About 4 on GLD, OGD could make 5, Web Tech, Data Management and SM could be bundled, so 5 and 3 say. 14:27:22 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: perhaps allow schedule to determine interest 14:27:50 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: outside of working out schedules this may be easiest way. 14:28:28 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: those on the call are the ones who signed up for the most 14:28:52 <ChrisBeer> Plus some who aren't present - but yes - usual suspects :) 14:28:55 <Daniel_Bennett> Brand: we should look at the Open Gov Directive series of meetings (US Govt). 14:29:13 <Daniel_Bennett> Brand: Cory was part of it (slides) 14:29:32 <josema> q? 14:29:35 <Daniel_Bennett> I attended this last week too Brand 14:29:45 <ChrisBeer> Question @Brand - why? (expand?) 14:30:09 <Daniel_Bennett> Brand: this series is worth for participation 14:30:30 <Daniel_Bennett> please announce who you are when speaking 14:31:26 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: we should use those people here to participate. not as necessary to expand. 14:31:32 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2010Jan/0023 14:31:45 <josema> josema has changed the topic to: 20 Jan IG call 14:32:02 <Daniel_Bennett> hello? 14:32:33 <josema> @chris, see https://opengovdirective.pbworks.com/List-of-Presentations 14:32:44 <Daniel_Bennett> Brand: outreach possibility 14:32:53 <ChrisBeer> Thanks (looking) 14:33:18 <Daniel_Bennett> OGD is a US executive branch on federal level program 14:33:39 <Daniel_Bennett> and this meeting series is co-hosted with US and volunteer participation 14:33:42 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:33:52 <Daniel_Bennett> Brand: combo some of them 14:34:16 <Daniel_Bennett> Cory: lets combine 2 and 3, and then 4 and 5 14:34:28 <josema> q? 14:34:50 <ChrisBeer> I understand the Directive, and remember the link from the list, just hadn't looked. Prob some good stuff there, some will be very US centric. On projects - are we working off the project page list, or the survey? (8 vs 6) 14:35:00 <Daniel_Bennett> Cory: lets use the branching at top level then go into precise topics on web site 14:35:19 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: how does this affect the participation 14:35:32 <josema> @chris, survey 14:36:06 <Daniel_Bennett> Ed: when filling out survey, and I was supportive of most of them, but not interested in participating in all of them 14:36:31 <Daniel_Bennett> Ed: 4 is too many to participate in them 14:36:37 <ChrisBeer> @jose thanks - cross over obvious then - 1-3 is GLD, 4-6 is Best Practice Projects. 14:36:47 <Daniel_Bennett> Ed: I would pick one or two 14:37:21 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: I though survey would help determine interest and some drop off. 14:37:42 <ChrisBeer> +1 Sandro 14:38:33 <ChrisBeer> Leaders only need to be initial co-ordinators really - time will determine the most active / loudest voices / direction the projects take 14:39:07 <ChrisBeer> For instance, George is the Demo man atm... 14:39:49 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: Daniel, do you not think that people will participate at the 4-5 level as survey indicated. 14:39:52 <edsu> +1 they don't seem independent to me either 14:40:23 <Vagner-br> Vagner-br has joined #egov 14:41:06 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: I think that the default option is to make clear that each group would work with some oversight. 14:41:28 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: I agree with Cory to create web framework would be helpful 14:41:32 <ChrisBeer> (IMO - honestly? I think those indicating 4-5 will seperate into those who are really interested, those who are interested due to rl work roles, which may change, and those who have an angle to push - the last two may well drop off depending on what happens) 14:41:37 <josema> I think there is overlap, but we should probably talk about it in terms of a) task forces and b) expected deliverables 14:42:11 <Daniel_Bennett> Ed: are you saying that these break down into actual groups? 14:42:16 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: yes 14:42:29 <ChrisBeer> +1 Sandro, Cory, Jose - we need some sort of plan / milestones for projects to report back with? 14:42:38 <Daniel_Bennett> Brand: I think that a wiki helps the connections between groups will help 14:43:06 <josema> q? 14:43:25 <ChrisBeer> Projects 1-3 flow on from concept to demo nicely... 14:43:41 <ChrisBeer> 4-6 are more linking/connections 14:43:42 <lselmi> lselmi has joined #egov 14:43:43 <josema> +1 to Chris 14:44:13 <lselmi> hi 14:44:32 <Daniel_Bennett> discussion of internal/external aspect of 1-6 issues 14:44:52 <ChrisBeer> ? 14:45:00 <ChrisBeer> int/ext aspect? 14:45:07 <josema> hi luigi, are you the one who joined last? (like 10 minutes ago) 14:45:10 <Daniel_Bennett> not sure myself 14:45:15 <lselmi> can you provide the link to the issues ? 14:45:24 <josema> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-egov-ig/2010Jan/0023 14:45:33 <lselmi> yes i joned 2 minutes ago 14:45:57 <Daniel_Bennett> Ed: the vagueness makes this hard to discuss. 14:45:59 <josema> zakim, [IPcaller] is lselmi 14:45:59 <Zakim> +lselmi; got it 14:46:22 <ChrisBeer> Int/Ext as in level of collaboration with other w3c groups or external "stakeholders"? 14:46:30 <sandro> edsu: I think it's important that the Data Management folks talk to the Linked Data people 14:46:43 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: happy to discuss this issue as it is very important. the charter points to the actual deliverables. 14:47:29 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: we should think of task forces and charter deliverables. then the groups could be taskforces. 14:47:42 <ChrisBeer> +1 Jose 14:47:55 <Daniel_Bennett> +1 Jose 14:48:09 <edsu> josema++ 14:48:30 <lselmi> i have read the project about long term data management but didn't understand what are the issues about that 14:48:42 <Daniel_Bennett> Cory: my interest is linked data and I am looking for a landing page for linked data for govt folks to get to and help them. 14:49:06 <Daniel_Bennett> Cory: and this help will need to cover all these subjects. 14:49:41 <Daniel_Bennett> Cory: we need to have landing pages which in turn link to more specific info 14:49:42 <Owen> Owen has joined #egov 14:49:44 <ChrisBeer> Prehaps the Chairs can outline what is expected to the Leads who can take this to the task forces for discussion - first step for each - determine what they will aim to deliver? 14:50:02 <josema> @luigi - "long term data management"?? that's very old... tied to the previous charter... projects we are discussing right now are at http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Projects (but two of them were already dropped) 14:50:12 <ChrisBeer> Rather than getting into the nitty gritty here? 14:50:13 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: wiki does not meet seriousness level... 14:50:50 <ChrisBeer> @Sandro - is a good sandbox through if used right 14:50:57 <Daniel_Bennett> Cory: wiki is a web asset and is not exclusive of more things 14:51:15 <Daniel_Bennett> Cory: this is the beginning 14:51:20 <sandro> For example: http://www.w3.org/TR/egov-improving/ 14:51:36 <josema> and http://www.w3.org/TR/gov-data/ 14:51:38 <Owen> G'day, Chris. 14:52:07 <ChrisBeer> @Owen G'day mate :) 14:52:47 <Daniel_Bennett> Cory: fighting the document centric nature of govt 14:52:59 <josema> if you want me to talk about specific deliverables I have in mind, a final, more elaborated version of "gov-data" is high on my priority list 14:53:19 <josema> q? 14:53:23 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: is somewhat skeptical, but hopeful of this 14:53:27 <ChrisBeer> IG notes are a good starting point for all projects/outcomes/education/outreach/demo 14:53:39 <ChrisBeer> +1 Jose - needs to go from Draft to Note 14:53:53 <Daniel_Bennett> Owen: the format of the work is less important than the content and how they can actually help 14:54:02 <sandro> sandro: develop on wiki, and later extract/reformat into W3C IG Note (technical report). 14:54:06 <Daniel_Bennett> Owen: small is beautiful 14:54:15 <ChrisBeer> +1 sandro 14:54:54 <josema> +1 to Owen and... IG Notes can be small 14:55:57 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: organizing around the wiki is sounding good. have 6 sections that each group must cultivate. and each group/section can work as needed or desired. 14:56:06 <Cory> +1 14:56:45 <lselmi> i have not followed the group for some time, sorry I suppose you are discussing about what kind of tool to use to write the documents of the projects. is that right ? 14:57:05 <Zakim> -Brand 14:57:06 <ChrisBeer> +1. Rachel / Edit team to create pages / IA for wiki - might save on confusion etc when groups/sections get started? 14:57:40 <sandro> PROPOSED: Each of the six projects will develop and maintain a set of pages on the eGov wiki, with a small and clean landing page, and more details as necessary, holding telecons as necessary, and as the work develops publishing as W3C TRs and on Wikipedia pages as useful. 14:57:45 <josema> nope, talking about the projects and how to move forward with them, if we should group them or not, if we should have separate task forces working on them, what the deliverables would look alike, etc. 14:58:13 <sandro> edsu: Let's not use wiki as deliverable. I like the W3C publication process. 14:58:20 <Daniel_Bennett> Ed: wiki good, but docs as deliverable a must per my experience. 14:58:27 <ChrisBeer> Seconded 14:58:31 <josema> +1 to Ed 14:58:31 <lselmi> ok 14:58:34 <ChrisBeer> (+1 ed) 14:58:43 <Daniel_Bennett> +1 Ed 14:59:09 <edsu> sandro++ 14:59:35 <Cory> I would also consider the wiki as a deliverable 14:59:58 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: lets leave the official docs aside for now 15:00:07 <ChrisBeer> Wiki = dynamic working draft, Document = milestone publication 15:00:15 <Daniel_Bennett> +1 15:00:33 <josema> +1 to Chris (and this is what we've done in the past 15:00:41 <josema> s/past/past) 15:01:52 <Cory> Example of a landing page: http://portal.modeldriven.org/content/president-obamas-initiatives 15:02:21 <ChrisBeer> So all that's left to go forward is pages set up for teams by ? and chairs to determine leads... 15:02:46 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: technical point that wiki is used to edit formal papers 15:04:15 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: we expect each group to have a TR by Sept 15:04:51 <sandro> PROPOSED: Each of the six projects will develop and maintain a set of pages on the eGov wiki, with a small and clean landing page, and more details as necessary, holding telecons as necessary, and as the work develops publishing as W3C TRs and on Wikipedia pages as useful. We expect each project to end up with a TR (IG Note) to be successful (except perhaps the demo). 15:05:03 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: except for the demos, we can have deliverables 15:05:19 <Cory> Yes 15:05:23 <Daniel_Bennett> yes 15:05:23 <josema> s/deliverables/other deliverables 15:05:26 <ChrisBeer> Demos that work should have associated TR on how it works... 15:05:28 <edsu> +1 15:05:48 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: any objections to revised motion 15:06:30 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: ? 15:07:24 <josema> +1 15:07:25 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: questions that some groups may co-create TRs or decide not to 15:07:26 <sandro> RESOLVED: Each of the six projects will develop and maintain a set of pages on the eGov wiki, with a small and clean landing page, and more details as necessary, holding telecons as necessary, and as the work develops publishing as W3C TRs and on Wikipedia pages as useful. We expect each project to end up with a TR (IG Note) to be successful (except perhaps the demo). 15:07:39 <cgi-irc> cgi-irc has joined #egov 15:07:46 <edsu> lol 15:09:26 <ChrisBeer> Inital pages to be created by which date, leaders to be appointed by which date? 15:09:52 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: as the people on the call, any chair volunteers? 15:10:32 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: we should quickly pick chairs 15:10:50 <ChrisBeer> Happy to chair any of 4-6. will defer to the longer running members thought 15:10:53 <Cory> Ok, I guess I can start #2, since that should set the tone - but if a gov person wants to take it, that is ok. 15:10:54 <ChrisBeer> *though 15:10:56 <sandro> web space set up by 2 weeks from now. 15:10:57 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: as a deadline for this (wiki setup and leaders) by 2 weeks 15:11:03 <ChrisBeer> +1 15:11:21 <ChrisBeer> Nominate George for Project 3 :) 15:11:24 <Daniel_Bennett> #4 I can help with 15:11:43 <Cory> Cory volunteers George for #3 15:12:03 <Daniel_Bennett> George for #3 15:12:35 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: I will be working on nominations 15:13:09 <ChrisBeer> If Dan wants 4, I'll take 5 or 6 15:13:21 <sandro> maybe "initial organizer", for the first meeting or two. 15:14:16 <sandro> Rachel: co-chairing is less daunting.... 15:14:20 <Daniel_Bennett> Rachel: I like the co chair idea 15:14:31 <ChrisBeer> +1 - accounts for TZs aswell 15:15:25 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: potential conflicts of time with groups 15:15:38 <Daniel_Bennett> how about a wiki calendar 15:15:41 <Daniel_Bennett> ? 15:15:55 <ChrisBeer> or could be seen with co-chairs as "shift work" :) 15:16:08 <ChrisBeer> someone always on for each group 15:17:41 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: reports from each group to this general call 15:18:21 <josema> s/?/Jose: still thinking of 6 telecons? 15:19:31 <ChrisBeer> @jose (only as needed?) 15:20:29 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: coordinated survey can help figure which groups can meet when. 15:20:47 <josema> @chris, likely... I see many names repeated across projects, and I don't think it's realistic to have them joining 3-4 calls per week (or every other week), but maybe it's only me, I'd let them self-organize anyway 15:20:57 <Cory> Thinking a meeting for a group every 2 weeks would be ok, thus making fewer time slots 15:21:00 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: lets leave this to chairs? 15:21:10 <ChrisBeer> +1 @jose 15:21:41 <ChrisBeer> +1 sando 15:21:50 <ChrisBeer> *Sandro 15:22:04 <Daniel_Bennett> Sandro: I can easily create this survey 15:22:37 <Cory> Great - Sandro has another task! 15:22:52 <ChrisBeer> lol 15:23:37 <Daniel_Bennett> Ed: I thought I heard of a suggestion to merging groups 15:23:46 <Cory> I was suggesting combining 1,2 to get started 15:23:50 <Daniel_Bennett> Ed: and scheduling easier to sched 15:25:03 <Daniel_Bennett> Owen: can you hear me know? 15:25:26 <Daniel_Bennett> owen is breaking up 15:26:05 <josema> please 15:27:08 <Owen> I hope the social media project group can demonstrate the use of better tools than teleconferencing to accomplish our task. 15:27:14 <ChrisBeer> (as far as chairs/projects/whatever goes) 15:27:22 <ChrisBeer> +1 owen <sandro> Topic: Next Scribe 15:27:33 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: scribe volunteer 15:27:42 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: I will be scribe 15:27:50 <Daniel_Bennett> everyone cheers for Jose 15:27:55 <ChrisBeer> lol 15:28:00 <Daniel_Bennett> Jose: adjourn 15:28:02 <Daniel_Bennett> bye all 15:28:03 <Zakim> -Rachel 15:28:03 <Cory> bye 15:28:05 <Zakim> -Sandro 15:28:07 <Zakim> -Ed_Summers 15:28:07 <ChrisBeer> bye 15:28:08 <Zakim> -Daniel_Bennett 15:28:08 <Zakim> -josema 15:28:10 <Zakim> -Cory 15:28:16 <lselmi> bye 15:28:21 <Cory> Cory has left #egov 15:28:23 <edsu> edsu has left #egov 15:28:32 <sandro> Daniel_Bennett, do you know what to do as scribe? 15:28:50 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer? 15:28:50 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2010/01/20-egov-irc#T15-28-50 # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000304