- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk <webmaster@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:09:02 +0000
- To: public-council@w3.org
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Survey of W3C Community and Business Groups' (public) for Olivier Thereaux. --------------------------------- Overall Experience ---- Please rate your overall experience according to the following aspects: * Your overall experience with Community Groups and Business Groups.: [ 3 +++ ] * Have you found the Community Groups and Business Groups documentation adequate (FAQ, policy summaries, etc.)?: [ No opinion ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): My experience with CG and BGs has been mixed. Some groups have been running like WGs, with an experienced chair and a strong focus, and have been fantastic to be part of. Others seem to convene, not know what to do, and die a slow death. I don't think it is a problem with documentation - the documentation is mostly OK. More of a problem of interaction design and flow, IMHO. --------------------------------- Work Flow ---- Questions 4 through 9 focus on work flow. --------------------------------- Discovery ---- Did you find it easy to discover groups of interest to you? * (x) Yes * ( ) No If not, why? (or any other comments): Yes, but… I find it easy because I subscribe to a list giving me a heads-up whenever a new group is created. If I had to navigate the existing list of arcanely titled groups in search of something interesting, I would probably struggle. That's not going to get any better as time passes and groups pile up. --------------------------------- Group Type Comparison ---- If you have experience in both Working Group and Community or Business Group, what advantages do you see for Working Groups? for Community or Business Groups? Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): Some of the CG/BG tools for coordination and web presence are great, and they would benefit a few WGs too. WGs still massively more effective on average, largely thanks to the work of W3C staff coordinating, nudging and advising chairs and groups on how to get things done. Surprisingly, I haven't found my BG to benefit a lot from staff involvement - possibly because the BG does not yet have a clear mandate, so the staff can't help as much as they would in a WG with a clear charter. Oh yes, charters are also what make WGs better - they do set a scope, and milestones too. The latter are seldom reached in time, of course, but they give groups something to strive for. --------------------------------- Decision-making ---- How is your Community or Business Group organized to make decisions? Have you reached decisions on challenging problems? We'd love to hear your successes or obstacles you've faced. Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): Hasn't happened a lot in my groups. The poll tool was useful in a few cases, though. --------------------------------- Ensuring Progress ---- Are you satisfied with how the Community or Business Group makes progress? What would enable you to make better progress? Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Transition to Working Group ---- Do you expect to advance Community or Business Group deliverables to a W3C Working Group? Please use the comment field for any information about the transition (time frame, perceived obstacles or challenges). * ( ) Yes * ( ) No * ( ) In discussion but not decided * (x) No idea Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Process, Patent and Copyright Policy, Contribution Agreements ---- Do you have any suggestions for changes to the Community Groups and Business Groups process, Contributor Agreement, or Final Specification Agreement that would facilitate participation? Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Overall User Interface ---- Please rate the usability of the following aspects: * The home page of your Community or Business Group: [ 3 +++ ] * Other parts of the Community and Business Group Web site.: [ 3 +++ ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): It's OK. I'm still confused by how the community groups' web space is largely dedicated to the blog, when the groups often communicate mostly via the mailing-list. Would be great to feature list activity on the HP somehow. I'm also giving a 3 for the usability of the list of groups. The live search is nice, but the usability of the accordion effect and the location of the links to the groups' home pages need to be tested with users and fixed. --------------------------------- User Accounts ---- Please rate the usability of any of the following actions you carried out. * Requesting an account (if you did so just for Community Groups and Business Groups): [ No opinion ] * Updating your affiliation in your account (if you were asked to do so): [ No opinion ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Joining a Group ---- Please, select the case that applies to you and comment on your experience joining a group (via the click-through form). * (x) I joined as a W3C Member employee, my request was processed by my organization's Advisory Committee Representative * ( ) I joined as a non-W3C Member employee, after getting my organization's patent and copyright commitment * ( ) I joined as an individual, unaffiliated with any organization Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): Being my own AC helps. Some of my colleagues are often surprised that their joining has to be vetted by me, but I'd like to keep it that way. --------------------------------- Creating a Group ---- If you created a group, rate the usability of the following aspects: * Clarity of the process for proposing a group: [ 5 +++++ (highest) ] * Clarity of the process by which people express support for a group: [ 5 +++++ (highest) ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): That bit works really well. --------------------------------- Group Operations ---- Rate the usability of any of the following operations you have carried out. * Choosing a chair (via checkboxes on the participants page): [ 4 ++++ ] * Publishing a draft specification (available to Chairs only): [ No opinion ] * Publishing a final specification (available to Chairs only): [ No opinion ] * Making a final specification commitment (through the click-through form): [ No opinion ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Suggestion Box ---- What can we do to improve the experience of participating in a Community Group or Business Group, tools you would find useful, or changes to enable you to work more effectively? Feedback: --------------------------------- Testimonial ---- To help W3C spread the word about Community and Business Groups, we invite you to provide a 1-paragraph testimonial about your Community Group or Business Group experience that you authorize us to publicize. This is purely optional. Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): These answers were last modified on 2 August 2012 at 09:09:01 U.T.C. by Olivier Thereaux Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/2012CGBGsurvey/ until 2012-09-30. Regards, The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 09:09:06 UTC