Re: Issue-19 questions remain - a proposal

On 04/22/2015 01:26 AM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
> 
>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 01:03, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
> 
> I think he mentioned blogs a lot in my conversations with him, as per links in
> issue-19. As mentioned in this thread IRC is not a good one to many communication tool,
> and Tantek knows that, and he knows we know that, so he can't be suggesting something 
> like that. Donald Davidson principle of Charity Harry:

Read this:
"RESOLVED: IRC and email and wiki are our canonical communication
channels and if there are dropped balls we handled them as needed. For
example, concern that not everybody was reading the mailing list which
is fixed by bringing up things in the wiki."[1]

I think "blogs" are not listed as part of our resolution to issue 19.
One can of course blog and we encourage to use your approach in that
that re self dog-fooding, but our resolution was not to mandate everyone
read everyone else's blog, but simply use IRC, email, and wikis in
whatever order or way they prefer.

Thus, the issue remains closed and I also don't have time to
indefinitely discuss what should be fairly obvious. Further bringing it
up during the telecon will be off-topic.

  cheers,
      harry

[1]
http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-04-14/line/1429031972038
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Ok, but we want to include Tantek too, and build something using actual standards
> to get going that he can agree to. 
> 
> So do we have a winner here?
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> what we are discussing here is are technical problems of having the group 
> communicate. I think we know that Tantek agrees that blogs are fine. So
> we just need to make sure we have a policy about publishing things this way,
> so that members who don't then follow the game, can not complain afterwards 
> of having been left out of the conversation when it comes to voting.
> 
>>
>>  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/
>>>>
>>>
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 23:32:14 UTC