Re: Issue-19 questions remain - a proposal

On 04/22/2015 12:53 AM, Bassetti, Ann wrote:
> Could you hack together a prototype of this idea, Henry? I vaguely get the gist, but it would be so much more useful if I could see your idea in action. And, you know, Demos R Us!
> 
> Can someone say how the pump.io or indieweb or any other community discusses stuff? That is, outside of email.  
> 
> I agree we seem to be guinea pigs, demonstrating a real-life social use case.  (I was going to say "rat hole" .. but that seemed to be mixing my rodents!)
> 

However, note that Tantek has not said that the WG has to use pump.io or
IndieWeb to communicate. He has just said he won't check email, so I
suggested that he prefers IRC.

So, thus, if you wish to discuss your user-storie with everyone, the IG
can host a meeting. For just tantek, you can find tantek in IRC.

 I think the idea is great Henry and you should proto-type.

Yet other WGs get by via IRC, wiki, and email. Thus, the issue remains
closed.  As said earlier, I think the underlying issue is social and a
difference of opinion. At the W3C, we must 'live with' others
differences of opinion to get specs to get to work.

  cheers,
    harry
>   -- Ann
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: henry.story@bblfish.net [mailto:henry.story@bblfish.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 3:41 PM
>> To: Halpin Harry
>> Cc: public-socialweb@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Issue-19 questions remain - a proposal
>>
>>
>>> On 21 Apr 2015, at 23:22, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Is there a way for the wiki to send a notification when there is
>>>> an update? Does that happen via the Watchlist? (Personally I find it
>>>> hard to have to go look, randomly, for updates. That feels really
>>>> unproductive.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> We might be able to, although that would flood the mailing list. Thus,
>>> it seems wiser to simply note major changes in the telecon.
>>>
>>>> -- Should we agree to use the "Discussion" pages?
>>>
>>> We could, or just see the note re IRC.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or is IRC the place for conversation?  It's great to use Loqi to tell! someone
>> (who's not present) something. It's great that there are daily logs.
>>>
>>> Of course, the larger problem may be some people simply may not want
>>> to discuss with each other, due to time constraints or fundamental
>>> disagreements. Again, that's not a WG issue per se nor solvable by a
>>> resolution. We cannot, for example, make a resolution saying "Tantek,
>>> you have to spend whatever time it takes to agree with bblfish even
>>> though you two disagree about how specs should be built."
>>>
>>> That being said, I think the IG should volunteer to host a discussion
>>> over Henry's stories.
>>>
>>> I'd like to stick the WG to technical topics that are clear and
>>> delimited rather than working style differences that are open-ended.
>>
>> I think Anne is asking: "how would this work even if people were willing to
>> discuss things". Clearly if people don't want to listen to each other and
>> discuss anything, but are just pushing an agenda then it is going to be difficult
>> to get to anyway close to a consensus, and consensus building is the mission
>> of the W3C.
>>
>> I understand that there are very strong divergences of methods and
>> undersanding of the space we are in. I have gone through all of them myself
>> at various points in the last 10 years. In any case at the face to face it was
>> agreed in fact that the group is not going to push for one standard because
>> the divergences are too strong at the moment. But for the divergences to
>> reduce then we need to have communication.
>>
>> So let's assume we do want to communicate, and look at the issues we can
>> deal with, namely buidling a process for communication. After all we are
>> trying to build a social web. Now there are a number of tools that one needs
>> to build to have a social web.
>>
>> One needs a way to send everyone in a group a message to alert them of
>> some project or idea, so that the whole group can focus its attention on a
>> particular topic. What tools can one use for this?
>>
>> a) mailing lists have until now been very good and served the W3C and IETF
>> well, as they allow a message to be sent from one to many
>> b) Wikis are not good unless the whole wiki has an RSS feed that people
>> would be expected to add to their blog reader and poll regularly. This as you
>> point out might be very noisy.
>> c) IRC channels have a way to ping one person, but not to ping the whole
>> group
>>   ( the gitter chat for github has an @all, but that ends up working by sending
>> every
>>    member an e-mail )
>>
>> So if e-mail is out by Tantek's decision, and neither wikis nor irc channels are
>> the right tool for the job, then we have the following question:
>>
>> Q1: How would one do one to many communication using the Social Web
>> without relying on e-mail?
>>
>> This is a question we MUST answer. It should be part of our user stories,
>> since it is holding us up here. (But it is difficult to answer this if we don't have
>> a channel to communicate about the various ideas on how to answer it,
>> before we build it ).
>>
>> If we are to be able to do this now, using tools at our disposal, we need to
>> use existing standards.
>> Lukily I think they are available, and have been for 10 years. We could do it
>> like this:
>>
>> One answer is that the Social Web WG could have a URI, lising each member
>> of the group by their WebID, and that each WebID profile could describe that
>> user including a foaf:weblog relation to their blog ( which has a relation to
>> their RSS Feed where they can post their messages ).
>>
>> Eg the social Web WG would have
>>
>> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#grp> foaf:member
>> <http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me>,
>>                                                   <http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/foaf.rdf#me>, ...
>>
>> Then each of these WebID profiles would have a relation relating the user to
>> a blog like this:
>>
>> <http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me> foaf:weblog
>> <http://bblfish.net/blog/> .
>>
>> Then by a drag and drop operation on the Social Web foaf:Group into a feed
>> reader, the feed reader could fetch all those blogs, find the linked rss feeds,
>> and poll those regularly ( once a day at least ), and show the group member
>> what others have read. Perhaps we'd have to agree that blogs related to
>> social web WG would be tagged by a special tag, so that we could filter out
>> people's cat pictures from the discussion relevant to the topic. The W3C
>> could index all those posts in an archive.
>>
>> To do this we would not need to invent anything new, but we could use
>> existing standards such as:
>> • Atom feeds
>> • foaf profiles
>>
>> We'd still perhaps need to agree on a link relation to state that one atom
>> entry was a response to another one. Is this all we need to do?
>>
>>
>> Henry
>>
>>
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 23:03:57 UTC