View this page "Action Groups"
Chris Saad
so now is your chance.
Let's not let this opportunity slip by!
Click on http://groups.google.com/group/dataportability-public/web/action-groups
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.
J. Trent Adams
Chris -
The only constituency that appears to be missing is the "voice" of
companies looking to use the specifications (Technical Blueprint
Group) and code (Implementation Group).
While it's possible some of these folks could find a fit somewhere
else (especially if the company's cooking on code, but not if they're
closer to code consumers than producers), it might be useful to
separate them out. I'm thinking this would essentially play the role
of insuring successful contact with a solid external reality. After
all, it might be the best blueprint and great code, but to help
successful adoption I'm sure it'd help to have an early feedback loop.
My $0.02,
Trent
On Jan 17, 7:23 pm, Chris Saad <chris.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please sign up to an Action Group - This is where the real work begins
> so now is your chance.
>
> Let's not let this opportunity slip by!
>
Chris Saad
group. They could help vendors implement as well as bring feedback
from vendors back to the group to help refine the message/blueprints
etc.
Do you think this will achieve a similar result?
J. Trent Adams
Chris -
Sure, that could work. It might help, then for us to clarify that the
Implementation Action Group would also like to include possible users
of the implementations. I simply read the group's charter as being
more focused on the coders than the users of the code.
No worries, I'll join up to help bring that focus to the group.
Thanks for the pointer,
Trent
dangrig
John Lawler
Elias Bizannes
how group lead (now liason) will be selected as well as deadline;
added text about steering group purpose
Brady
CleverClogs
The Action Groups page now contains links to the public Skype chat
rooms that have been created separately for each action group. Please
feel free to join any chat room. It'd be nice if you'd take note of
the room guidelines too. The chat rooms are provided to get
acquainted, discuss current affairs and have some fun along the way.
Note that decisions and major outcomes of discusions should still be
communicated via the Google Groups.
Mike Reynolds
Tony Yarusso
Elias Bizannes
to anyone. This isn't a movement to use "only opensource". It's to get
our data out and do what we want with it; Skype is just a tool, just
like how Windows is on your computer.
I also think there is a distinction to be made with openness - anyone
can join an action group, but the work in progress of that action
group shouldn't have to be public.
On Jan 28, 9:07 am, "Tony Yarusso" <tonyyaru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi everyone,
>
> > The Action Groups page now contains links to the public Skype chat
> > rooms that have been created separately for each action group. Please
> > feel free to join any chat room. It'd be nice if you'd take note of
> > the room guidelines too. The chat rooms are provided to get
> > acquainted, discuss current affairs and have some fun along the way.
> > Note that decisions and major outcomes of discusions should still be
> > communicated via the Google Groups.
>
> > Click on
> >http://groups.google.com/group/dataportability-public/web/action-groups
> > - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
> > work.
>
> Isn't it a bit odd for a group focusing on openness to be using a
> proprietary application and protocol for their discussion? I stopped using
> Skype because of that a long time ago, and am a little bit surprised that
> you are. Any other thoughts on that?
>
> --
> Tony Yarussohttp://tonyyarusso.com/
Tony Yarusso
Richard Pendergast
I had this exact discussion with several of the guys a couple of days
ago, and the results have been added the the group FAQs as
Contribution Guidelines.
http://groups.google.com/group/dataportability-public/web/faq#13
The group Skype chat is about basically getting to know each other,
supporting each other, and covering very quickly emerging ideas and
issues - basically things that would be very difficult within the
action group discussions.
The Action Group discussions themselves are about continuing anything
coming from these discussions that proves interesting enough or
relevant enough to warrant further discussion - as well as obviously
continuing discussions initiated within the action group discussions
themselves.
Pages within the public group basically document any progress within
individual Action Group initiatives or tasks. Pages are created within
the public group in order to widen visibility and allow for more open
discussion etc.
So, we end up with a natural progression of discussion chat ->
discussion -> page, or simply discussion -> page.
Both the Skype chat and the group discussions are for creation of knowledge.
Pages are for capturing that knowledge for future reference.
Within the Implementation Action Group we have already begun to make a
point of identifying of significance, or relevence, within the group
Skype chat, and when this happens we take a transcript of the
discussion and pull it down to the group discussion for the rest of
the group. This means that discussions are not lost when they occur
within the chat, members who do not participate in the chat do not
miss out, and there is a complete history of any significant topic
recorded within the group discussions. On top of this it makes sense
to take what is essentially one long discussion and break it into
significant points when pulling it down to the group discussions, so
what was one long stream, may become 2 or 3 individual discussion
topics.
At the same time, one of the key reasons for the Skype chat is for
members to get to know each other and offer each other real time
support, encouragement etc, and in most cases this would just become
noise if recorded within the discussions.
Richard
Elias Bizannes
Make a post in the evangelists group, as the collbaration systems for
the DP Project are determined by the people there.
Tony Yarusso
Elias Bizannes
So does Google Talk qualify then in your eyes?
I'd be happy to support you if you wish to implement a new system for
the DP movement as I agree it's a great idea to use software that in
consistent with the greater cause (assuming we don't sacrifice too
much functionality).
Key needs are
- it can do group chats
- it has a history function
- there is a decent alert feature of new messages in the chats, like
how Skype has
Michelle Murrain
>> I was thinking along the lines of a SIP or XMPP-based system.
>
> So does Google Talk qualify then in your eyes?
>
> I'd be happy to support you if you wish to implement a new system for
> the DP movement as I agree it's a great idea to use software that in
> consistent with the greater cause (assuming we don't sacrifice too
> much functionality).
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the versions of Skype
available for Linux does not include the chat function - so those of us
who use Linux on the desktop can't take part in the skype chats.
Is there a reason IRC hasn't been considered (or has it?)
Peace,
Michelle
----------------
Michelle Murrain
michelle...@gmail.com
http://www.zenofnptech.org
Paul Jones
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the versions of Skype
available for Linux does not include the chat function - so those of us
who use Linux on the desktop can't take part in the skype chats.
I know of a number of people using Linux and participating in the chats.
Is there a reason IRC hasn't been considered (or has it?)
Skype tends to be a lot more user friendly than IRC - especially in terms of it catching you up on messages if you're offline.
Paul.
Jacob Chapel
thought there was a shift and most people moved away from it the last
few years. I guess its a dev thing. I love IRC.
With that said, there are clear cut reasons for using Skype chat, and
nothing IRC or any other chat setup right now can replicate.
* Once connected, you will always have any activity logged even if you
leave and come back
* There is more identifiable information about each user
* It is easier to handle multiple chatrooms for discussion, at least
as easy as IRC
I know its not the most desirable for many people, but you can't
expect us to choose the least effective solution.
Jacob Chapel
PracticalPortability.org
Michelle Murrain
> I know of a number of people using Linux and participating in the chats.
Hi Paul,
I would love to know how they are doing it - the latest beta from
Skype for Linux does not include the public chat feature.
> Skype tends to be a lot more user friendly than IRC - especially in terms
> of it catching you up on messages if you're offline.
Agreed. But it is unfortunate that a chunk (albeit small, perhaps
tiny) of the folks interested in this effort can't take part in what
seems to be a pretty active and important part of the conversation.
Especially since a lot of folks who use Linux on the desktop really
care about open data, etc.
Peace,
Michelle
--
"The important thing is this: to be ready at any moment to sacrifice
what you are for what you could become." -- Charles Dubois
Richard Pendergast
community is typically so active in open source development and
uptake.
ill dig around now and see what i can turn up, but ultimately the
easiest way to find a solution to this will be to ask those already
involved in the chats and using linux.
i wont be back to the chats til tonight, but if nobody has an answer
by then, ill ask around.
Elias Bizannes
Marjolein Hoesktra is our resident Skype guru and should know this.
From what I've witnessed, people can access from Linux, but instead of
going via the link, they get manually added by one fo the hosts in the
chat. Hopelly she can reply to this thread to share her knowledge.
Cheers,
Elias
CleverClogs
Thank you all for your feedback about choosing Skype as our live-chat
platform. In the past few days I've reached out to most people listed
on the Action Groups page to find out if they wanted to become a
member of the chat rooms and if so, if there'd be anything I could do
to assist. I'm really sorry I hadn't come round to pinging you,
Michelle, yet. My experience so far is that though most people
appreciate the offer to assist, they are able to find their way to the
chat rooms all right. I'm truly sorry, however, that the Skype URLs
don't work for people on the Linux platform. In such cases we've
manually invited these people into the room. Once invited to the chat
rooms by any of the hosts (we have several hosts in each room), anyone
on Mac/Linux or Windows should be able to participate.
Please feel free to add 'dataportability' (our Skype admin account)
and 'cleverclogs.org' to your contact list so that we can get you into
the rooms of your choice as soon as possible.
We've set up the chat rooms hoping they would facilitate the
discussions, to discover strengths, needs and interests, and also to
allow people to get acquainted with people outside their own direct
community. Once the connections are there, it's easier to move on to
the next step: contribute to the goals of the DataPortability Project.
Please feel free to ask further questions and to make suggestions.
Kind regards,
Marjolein Hoekstra
Tony Yarusso
So does Google Talk qualify then in your eyes?
> I was thinking along the lines of a SIP or XMPP-based system.
It would be a step in the right direction at least, although as I understand it there are some odd things about Google's particular implementation (that I'm not qualified to speak intelligently about), so a more standard provider might be better. (Of course, people could still use Google Talk in client terms - it's just a question of what server things get hosted on.)
I'd be happy to support you if you wish to implement a new system for
the DP movement as I agree it's a great idea to use software that in
consistent with the greater cause (assuming we don't sacrifice too
much functionality).
Sadly, I don't currently have to time personally to actually implement anything (had some extra work stuff come up for the next few months), so I'm having to offer this as a "wouldn't it be nice if..." suggestion, in hopes that if others agree someone else can step up to make it actually happen.
Key needs are
- it can do group chats
- it has a history function
- there is a decent alert feature of new messages in the chats, like
how Skype has
Group chats are possible on anything I can think of. As far as history, I normally consider that a client-side thing; was there something else you meant? (Of course it would be reasonably easy to have a logging bot sort of client for automatically publishing logs if that's what you were going for.) For alert features, again, that's client-specific, but most things have a plethora of options for alerts of new messages, messages with your name in them, messages with words of interest, etc.
Originally, I was approaching this with the thought that you were looking for a voice chat solution, but reading some of the other responses I'm not sure anymore if that is true. If indeed you only need text interaction, I would second the mention of IRC, as it's what I use for everything else open-source and open-standards related. There is already a #dataportability channel on Freenode, with a small group hanging out there semi-regularly, although I'm not sure how much it's being used yet.
Julian Bond
>I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the versions of Skype
>available for Linux does not include the chat function - so those of us
>who use Linux on the desktop can't take part in the skype chats.
A little late.
Skype4Linux V2 Beta supports Group chats. You *might* have to get
somebody to add you to the chat.
As does Skype4Mac
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Pain Reliever
Julian Bond
>I would love to know how they are doing it - the latest beta from
>Skype for Linux does not include the public chat feature.
Actually it does. However you might need somebody to add you rather than
just clicking on the URL and adding yourself.
Michelle Murrain
> Skype4Linux V2 Beta supports Group chats. You *might* have to get
> somebody to add you to the chat.
>
> As does Skype4Mac
Yeah, it does require someone to invite you - and I got invited, so all
is well. :-)
That said, I think it's worth considering, at some point in the future,
using a method of chat communication that is itself an open standard.
Kinda like eating your own dog food as it were.
Peace,
Michelle
Julian Bond
>That said, I think it's worth considering, at some point in the future,
>using a method of chat communication that is itself an open standard.
>Kinda like eating your own dog food as it were.
Or perhaps Skype should be pummelled into supporting Dataportability?
;^)