Chatlog 2010-01-20

From W3C eGovernment Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

See CommonScribe Control Panel, original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

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
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>
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>
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. 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>
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:
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>
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
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>
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 (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:
14:51:36 <josema> and
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:
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