tantek.com

t

  1. W3C Vision needs adversarial reading analyses

    on

    Quoting from this comment on issue 113 to separate this into its own issue:

    …we need to do an adversarial reading of the document, to anticipate how it will be understood and misunderstood by people outside the consortium -- especially those who may not be predisposed to be 'on board' with what we do.

    This will likely require a section by section reading, and filing new specific issues per potential misunderstanding to consider how and if there is way to mitigate such potential misunderstandings. Such new issues should cite this issue and then we can make closing this issue dependent on closing all such specific issues.

    We may want to consider a list of checkboxes in this issue to track completion of such adversarial reading analyses section by section.

    on

  2. 👍

    on

  3. Closing with editorial change (https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/175) merged to include "and the Vision Task Force" per Vision Task Force resolution: https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-vision-minutes.html#r03

    on

  4. Removing "needed for Statement" label but leave issue open for further iterative improvements per Vision Task Force resolution:
    https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-vision-minutes.html#r04

    on

  5. It has been a while since the most recent discussions on this issue.

    Since then, I will note that I have heard anecdotal experience from the Team and others regarding using the W3C Vision Note in their decision-making and they have found it quite useful, in everything from chartering, to resolving objections (often amciably), to recruiting.

    Thus I propose that we close this issue as complete or complete enough to proceed to Statement.

    If we get new information or new experiences (where people tried to use the Vision to make hard decisions and found it lacking), then we should open new issue(s) for those specific opportunities for improvement.

    on

  6. The editor and chair of the Vision Task Force met with W3C team members working on a proposed update to the W3C mission statement and we (VisionTF) are currently waiting on an updated proposal for presentation to the Task Force. We hope to see this proposed update sometime this month or next month.

    on

  7. @github.com/plehegar regarding: “Will the Social Web charter part of the scope of this breakout?”

    I support discussing next steps on a Social Web WG charter in this breakout, in particular, using the discussion and links in https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/435 to help us make forward progress.

    on

  8. @github.com/plehegar regarding:
    > Can we turn the proposal (https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/WG_Charter_Discussion) into a charter?

    I think that proposal made good progress on some sections of a potential future Social Web WG charter as of meetings and discussions 6-12 months ago.

    However, given the CG/WG Proposal Stages you linked us to above, I think it would be worth splitting the large table of Deliverables into two tables for consideration:
    * Specs published by the prior Social Web WG — for necessary maintenance
    * New proposals or draft specs - for working through stages

    Without objection, I can do the wiki-table editing to split up that draft table of deliverables so it matches better with the CG/WG Proposal Stages proposal.

    (Please thumbs-up as encouragement if you support this)

    on

  9. @github.com/plehegar I read that FedID CG/WG Proposal Stages proposal (https://github.com/w3c-fedid/Administration/blob/main/proposals-CG-WG.md) and it makes a lot of sense to me as a thoughtful and rational methodology to incubate ideas and proposals in a CG through levels and when to uplift a proposal into the corresponding WG. I support it.

    I think this would work well for numerous technical proposals being discussed in the Social Web CG to help them evolve and advance iteratively, and provide a more explicit way to evaluate them (independent of their specific topic or technology) for taking up by a potential future Social Web WG.

    on