12:46:57 RRSAgent has joined #egov 12:46:57 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-irc 12:47:15 Zakim has joined #egov 12:47:35 zakim, this will be egov 12:47:35 ok, Sharron; I see T&S_EGOV()9:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes 12:48:18 rrsagent, make logs public 12:50:56 kevin has joined #egov 12:51:14 hi there Sharron, I also liked your feedback to the charter :) 12:51:32 but I like the content of the charter 12:52:43 hi there Hugh. Absolutely I agree with the content. Only hoping for clear language. One reason I was so dismayed about the first doc is that I think the content is so important and valuable, but so many folks just can't get through it. 12:53:41 need to lead by example, show how effective clear language can be 12:53:53 yep 12:55:56 anyway, I won't be dialling in as it's too late for me. Hopefully someone, even RRSAgent, will note my apology 12:56:04 hope you have a great call :) 12:56:34 will do, thanks! 12:57:25 T&S_EGOV()9:00AM has now started 12:57:32 + +1.512.305.aaaa 13:00:10 +[IPcaller] 13:00:34 + +1.202.626.aabb 13:01:11 Owen has joined #egov 13:01:18 + +1.202.564.aacc 13:01:26 zakim, aaa is Sharron 13:01:26 sorry, Sharron, I do not recognize a party named 'aaa' 13:01:30 Rachel has joined #egov 13:01:35 zakim, aaaa is Sharron 13:01:40 +Sharron; got it 13:01:51 + +1.509.464.aadd 13:02:06 Daniel_Bennett has joined #egov 13:02:49 + +1.202.319.aaee 13:03:00 aaee is Daniel 13:03:20 scribe: Sharron 13:03:28 Chair: Kevin 13:04:15 Meeting: EGOV 13:05:12 Kevin: Light agenda. Will update egov activies, look at charter draft. Anything to add? 13:05:17 Rachel: Use cases? 13:05:24 Kevine: Yes, OK. 13:05:50 Kevin: Federal gov had moved into Phase 2of Open govet initiative. 13:06:43 + +1.202.233.aaff 13:06:46 ...I participated in call last week. Four areas of conversation that I tweeted out. 13:07:12 ...most relevant to us is the 4th item, comments and queries about data presentation. 13:07:48 ...we are asked to participate and take on a role similar to a moderator. 13:08:38 ...if you have been following there are some ridiculous comments. New method of managing will preserve the absurd, but within hierarchy that brings best, most serious ideas to the top. 13:10:00 ...What has finally happened is that expectation for strategy document has been minimized. Participants are understanding that we can't just flip a swich and that fed processes take longer than expected. 13:10:26 ...will forward links and encourage our group to participate and even take a role in moderation. 13:11:00 ...The ideas on the forum run the gamut and our group has expertise to contribute menaingfully. 13:11:26 Let the 1000th idea bloom 13:12:06 ...We were #1000 idea and Beth reported that they got about 2500 ideas. The current phase will go on for a week or so, and dialogue will continue beyond that as systems are fogured out. 13:13:15 ...Meeting with TBL by phone and in person this week. He will also meet with Beth and I will debrief him about egov activities so he is prepared. Will ask TBL to help us get funding to develop proptotypes. 13:13:47 ...TBL has been tapped into recovery.gov and data.gov and is committed to be very involved. 13:14:00 Suzanne: Did you mention that data.gov is in P2? 13:14:53 ...looking at sustainability. Federal CIOs that are part of the Federal CIO council, have been asked to committ a person within their agencies to do the data mining and submit data from 100% of federal aganecies. 13:16:11 ...I am POC of POC Group and we have started a workgroup to train them. Those who get and are very good at it, will ask them to continue to help train the others. Tomorrow the POC group will teleconference and I will introduce roles and responsibilities. 13:17:26 ...Friday we will have a f2f to recognize candidate dada sets. Also have monthly meetings and will want the participants to understand the importance of the work of the eGov. 13:18:02 Kevin: EPA contact suggested that they submit draft proposal to us for our feedback. 13:18:27 Owen: has metadata template been published? 13:18:52 Suzanne: Don't know if it has been finalized. We are learning as we go to make sure that metadata is understood. 13:19:09 Kevin: Scientific abstract schema was something beinglooked out. 13:19:21 Suzanne: Yes, but no hard decisions have been made. 13:19:35 Owen: Metadata is of great interest to data managers. 13:19:48 Kevin: Yes we talked alot about the importance. 13:20:09 Suzanne: Things are a still a bit messy but we are learning and finely tuning it. 13:21:12 davemc has joined #egov 13:22:15 Suzanne is scheduled to speak about the FEA DRM in relation to records management at FIRM's forum at FTC on June 23: http://firmcouncil.org/docs/20090623ForumAgenda.pdf 13:22:43 Kevin: I had another meeting with VSA and IBM IP rep attended. Talked about IBMs dual role, using open source technology but also has proprietary modes of operation. He was considering participation from IBM. 13:22:58 apologirs for being late 13:24:12 ...met with Adobe as well and talked about their reaction to first doc and how we were working to mediate their concerns. They were pleased and seem cognizant of the urgency of our tasks and the need for respect and patience for other points of veiw, 13:24:52 Kevin: Let's look at the charter draft. Went back to our F2F and email comments. 13:26:45 ...it was hard to understand where to grab on to first charter and what roles each of us could assume. Now that first issue paper is complete, we can focus in on open govt data and web development to provide avenue for accessibility, validation and keep the category of web development in there. Recognize that not everyone is compfortable pulling XML files, etc and need interface for citizens. 13:27:53 ...I ssue papers on good HTML proactice,etc. Goals, measures and strategies are to provide tasks for each to take on. Want to get final charter doc to them in July. 13:29:04 Rachel: The way that we write the more technical stuff is important. The clearer the language is, the broader the audience that we can work. Can we do anything to the current doc? 13:30:40 Kevin: Judy Brewer provided input on several sentences at the front. Our understanding was that we were not allowed to touch the papaer. Judy eminded us that we could indeed rewrite it. based on what is out there now, we can revise and rewrite certain sections that are there. It is lengthly and meant to be read in sections. 13:31:22 ...In second year charter, I am suggesting that we publish more frequently and more topically. 13:32:23 Daniel: Plain language means to me that we need more editing. Policy needed to clarify publishing and editing cycles. Work backwards from deadlines. 13:33:27 Kevin: Good point. The editing cycle precluded editing to the extent that we had hoped. 13:33:54 Owen: Who are we writing for? If academics, perhaps the appraoch was fine, but if policy makers, need brevity. 13:34:27 Kevin: Need to reach both sides of the fence. Some policy people are highly technical, but some will glaze over. 13:34:47 ...To reach the mission we need to communicate out in different ways. 13:35:36 Daniel: I agree but still think it is a separate issue. The issue of clarity is relevant no matter whether the doc is technical or not. As people look at it, we can call out the pre-requisites. 13:36:25 ...We added a glossary but maybe what we need to do is realize that for eGov we need a Quick Guide for Execs or something. 13:36:56 Rachel: It is not that they need to understand how XML works, but why it is important. is 13:37:16 ...even when talking about tech issues, it can be presented in a way that is clear. 13:37:48 ...difficult but can be done, takes time and level of understanding of tech issues as well. 13:38:05 ...I have volunteered to clarify language. 13:40:48 Sharron: Plain language must be part of our committment 13:40:54 Rachel: I agree. 13:43:07 Daniel: Formalize so that we have an editorial committee so that the editors are not the writers and because we have different audiences, we always have a nontech intro. Minimum standard amount of time. 13:43:19 Rachel: I agree, propose two weeks out. 13:43:27 Kevin: I agree. 13:44:07 Rachel: To summarize, I guess I can just jump in and work on a rewrite of the current document. 13:44:33 Kevin: Yes, I could see us pulling out sertain sections. What you are doing will give us a head start. 13:45:13 Rachel: I propose that we set up a two week window where no new content is added and goes to plain language editorial review. 13:45:45 Daniel: And that we include a part of each paper to include content in layman's terms. 13:46:13 Rachel: Yes, and I think we will find that it is more useful to everyone. 13:46:37 Kevin: We want to make it readable but also becoem a resource for techies who need to translate to their own bosses. 13:47:25 Daniel: I ahve always felt strongly that that was one of our roles. To translate W3C jaron and tech talk into language that folks can understand. 13:47:52 Rachel: Yes, we are the bridge. If tech folks can not explain what they are trying to do it is less effective. 13:48:02 MoZ has joined #egov 13:48:20 Daniel: Part of charter language could be to make that very point. 13:48:40 Kevin: I agree and if you ahve a few minutes to add that to the wiki, please do. 13:49:03 Rachel: I will start tackling pieces of the current document. How shall I submit? 13:49:39 Kevin: Could form small committee - 13:49:54 Rachel: I can send to the list and see who wants to serve on the editorial board. 13:50:41 Kevin: About the Use Cases, part of the publishing process those did not get linked up and were not well referenced within the document. 13:51:02 ...we need some review of the exisitng Use Case and link them into the revised document. 13:51:26 Rachel: Submission of Use Case is submitted, reviewed and if accepted is integrated into final publicatin? 13:52:18 Kevin: Yes at first F2F developed Use Cases that we worked from in developing first issue paper. We did not actually link them up in haste of publication but need to do so. 13:52:47 Rachel: There were many use cases developed that got orphaned in the process and are looking for ways to bring them back into our work. 13:53:02 + +34.98.439.aagg 13:53:47 ocr has joined #egov 13:53:48 Kevin: Karen Myers, Jose and others spent phone time dealing with how to communicate out. Jose and Karen are looking for resources outside of the wiki to help us communicate out and keep the public aware of what we are doing. 13:53:56 Rachel: Sounds good, thanks. 13:55:39 Kevin: Mission statement? 13:56:46 Daniel: One of the issues is that even putting it on the wiki people don't know who they could be stepping on, etc. Perhaps best to focus on one call. 13:57:10 ...Are there people willing to spend the time to hash this out? 13:58:21 Kevin: If Rachel puts that call out perhaps we use the charter doc as there first task. Without having Word doc circulating with track changes. 13:58:41 Daniel: Yes, we could start the process right now. 13:59:49 Owen: I hesitate to raise this may complicate. Would we like to include a vision statement? Could help clarify since our current mission statement contains a bit of vision. Mission statement could focus on what we are DOING and vision stment on where we would like to see the world. 14:00:33 Kevin: Good point. Told Jose it seemed like a biz plan. Especially if seeking funding it could be sueful. 14:00:49 Owen: Stakeholders will care about goals. 14:01:22 Kevin: Yes, several potential participants struggle with where they see themselves in this larger process. 14:01:53 ...last year we wrestled alot with where we were going, how to get there. 14:02:27 Owen: Yes I look for where stratml relates. Current themes seem to be goals. I will give some thought. 14:03:02 Kevin: Goal is early July to submit Charter2. Can edit the wiki. 14:03:39 Daniel: Are you saying if anyone has issues, post to the wiki by next week, the editorial board can then take it on? 14:03:56 Kevin: Yes, then we can get it to W3C and approved by Sept 1. 14:04:05 Daniel: Can we go through the deliverables? 14:04:27 ...says we will build out the web site? 14:04:44 Kevin: Yes, I mentioned that we had talked with Karen. 14:05:19 ...feedback from PR firm Edleman is that wiki is daunting and we could present general info that is of interest to the proess. 14:05:26 Daniel: a portal? 14:05:48 Kevin: Yes, while we have several people comfortable on the wiki, many need more. 14:06:28 Daniel: Goal to achieve 100 media mentions...may not want it to be so public. 14:07:06 ...numbers are not always the most important way to measure that. May want to be more general "raise awareness through press and other means" 14:07:21 Kevin: I'm fine with that. 14:08:11 Daniel: Can we greater emphasize our role as a clearinghouse? Open the resources and encourage agencies to use them. 14:08:53 ...I know data.gov is trying to do that for feds but we can help state, local and international institutions do this internally. 14:09:29 Brand: Many people are uploading data.gov DB to Amazon cloud and building apps. 14:09:47 Rachel: Also documenting best practices, sharing ideas like that would be good. 14:10:21 Brand: will post his outreach to Congress members 14:10:58 Kevin: Tech standards seem to be contained in many discussions on the Hill so awareness is increasing, which is good. 14:11:31 Brand: Ideas of semantic web are catching on, Tim should ask for pilots to be created. 14:11:58 Kevin: Yes, I am hoping for it, resources are in doubt. 14:12:56 Daniel: Plain language aside, sometimes marketing jargon like Web2.0 creates meaningless noise. As editorial board ploicy, we can define those kinds of terms or coin our own. 14:13:16 ...I looked at Web standards and did not find Web 2.0 14:13:27 Rachel: Do yu John and Jose have talking points? 14:13:48 Kevin: Informally we do, but karen & co are working on more formal points. 14:14:41 Owen: Most do not know what Web2.0 is, but do know Twitter, facebook, etc. Brand's point about prototypes is great to provide something that we can use, kick the tires, etc. 14:15:16 Kevin: I have been asked to be more pointed. 14:15:39 Brand: Or we can take over the term Web 2.0 and define it 14:16:20 Kevin: I define it as widgets, distibution and sharing. Can we talk about that as a beginning? 14:16:38 Owen: From my perspective, stovepipe of proprietary systems. 14:17:01 Daniel: Must first meet Web 1.0 standards 14:17:27 Kevin: Agree that is critically important and opens so many other doors. 14:18:19 Daniel: Put out a call? 14:18:34 Rachel: Yes I will do that. 14:19:10 Daniel: Add the section saying that all our documents will have executive summary and that we have the two week editorial lead time. 14:21:10 Kevin: Edit wiki with any additional comments you may have about the charter. Jose feels we need a strong focus on OGD and I agree that we need to keep our finger on that pulse and are contibuting to all of the issues. 14:21:30 Owen: Who are we doing the work for and who is doing the work itself? 14:22:26 Kevin: Point you to the fact that we would continue the Task Force model and encourage more activity and want to make sure that everyone knows what they are volunteering for 14:22:36 ...let's consider the structure. 14:22:43 Daniel: What were the faults? 14:23:01 Kevin: Lack of clarity of expectations of each TF 14:24:03 ...sub chairs of TF were so busy in day jobs often could not get commitment from TF participants. 14:24:57 Kevin: With more structure and task orientation, we can expect better outcomes. 14:25:09 Owen: Or at least better understand what we can and can not do. 14:25:16 Kevin: yes that right too. 14:25:51 ...Next call in 2 weeks. Hope to have feedback on charter by then. rachel will have editorial group together and they will have 2 weeks to edit and resubmit. 14:26:57 Daniel: editorial board has 2 weeks but additional changes are still possible if submitted to editorial board. 14:27:38 Rachel: From now on, everything we publish should go through the editorial board two weeks before publication. 14:28:23 Kevin: I agree in general but once we get to point of submission to W3C with our charter, it can not change. 14:29:24 - +1.202.626.aabb 14:29:24 Rachel will scribe next time. 14:29:26 - +1.202.564.aacc 14:29:26 - +1.202.233.aaff 14:29:27 - +1.202.319.aaee 14:29:28 - +1.509.464.aadd 14:29:28 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:29:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/06/10-egov-minutes.html Sharron 14:29:29 - +34.98.439.aagg 14:29:30 -[IPcaller] 14:29:37 -Sharron 14:29:39 T&S_EGOV()9:00AM has ended 14:29:40 Attendees were +1.512.305.aaaa, [IPcaller], +1.202.626.aabb, +1.202.564.aacc, Sharron, +1.509.464.aadd, +1.202.319.aaee, +1.202.233.aaff, +34.98.439.aagg 14:43:02 annew has joined #egov 14:43:53 leave 15:10:26 Karen has joined #egov 15:10:35 Karen has left #egov 15:10:54 Zakim has left #egov 15:19:23 Sharron has left #egov