RE: Proposed Group: CoVid-19 Remote Meet, Work, Class Community Group

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

For those that don't know, W3C requires 5 people willing to work on a topic to start a "Community Group". The proposed group would be hosted by W3C,  but anyone can join --  you do need a W3C Account. 

https://www.w3.org/accounts/request 

There is some amount of verification I suppose. (*Email (To reduce processing delays please enter your corporate email address, you may modify it later))

 

  I chose proposing a W3C group over another mailing list because I thought it fit the purpose and they offer some infrastructure. (Think of it as a lighter-weight way of having a BOF?)

 

This is a call for volunteers:  I'm hoping some people might be willing to spend some of the energy and concern they have (to chatter about a topic on the IETF discussion list),  and direct it toward actually helping other people to use the Internet   to help solve a societal problem.  Along the way, it might tell us something about additional standards work we might need, when deploying technology “in anger”.

 

 

https://www.w3.org/community/blog/2020/03/10/proposed-group-covid-19-remote-meet-work-class-community-group/

 

--

LarryMasinter.net

 

 

 

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 4:50 PM
To: Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>
Cc: Joseph Potvin <[e-mail]>; IETF Rinse Repeat <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Proposed Group: CoVid-19 Remote Meet, Work, Class Community Group

 

For what it's worth,

 

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:13 PM Larry Masinter <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

*	global call-to-action for the ISoc/IRTF/IETF, W3C, Apache, Linux Foundation, FSF, OSI, etc. communities

 

I thought we might need a group focused on guidelines for people faced with an immediate need to support virtual meetings, work from home, remote classes.

What are best practices? For the world, not just for IETF; for immediate effect, not just “some day” (subject of Manycouches discussion).

 

That's a really interesting idea, and Larry also points out that it's not clear that any of the organizations in his list of communities can do this without help from at least some of the others.  

 

This was the one thing I wish we'd done differently after IETF 95/Zika - we started Manycouches thinking about an in-person meeting with emergency cancellations by many participants, like the one we'd just dodged, but preplanned entirely-virtual meetings also crept into scope, and what we ended up with for IETF 107 was an emergency entirely-virtual meeting - the worst of all combinations. 

 

I hope we continue planning for all of these, but not at the same time, with the same people, in the same forum. The skill sets required overlap, but they aren't the same.

 

IMO, of course.

 

Spencer

 

https://www.w3.org/community/blog/2020/03/10/proposed-group-covid-19-remote-meet-work-class-community-group/

 

 

 

From: Manycouches <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf Of Joseph Potvin
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 9:39 AM
To: IETF Rinse Repeat <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: Re: [Manycouches] [107all] Update on IETF 107 Vancouver and COVID-19

 

RE: "I don't have any idea whether anything on this thread recently, including this note, are of value to the people actually making
the decision as to whether to hold a f2f meeting"

 

I suggest that the current scenario is a impromptu resilience test and global call-to-action for the ISoc/IRTF/IETF, W3C, Apache, Linux Foundation, FSF, OSI, etc. communities. 




Joseph Potvin
Executive Director, Xalgorithms Foundation
Mobile: [phone] <tel:[phone]> 
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.xalgorithms.org  <https://www.xalgorithms.org>