W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mw4d@w3.org > August 2008

Determining MW4D Core Values

From: Ken Banks, kiwanja.net <donotreply@kiwanja.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:05:13 +0100
To: "'joe michiels'" <jmichiels@gmail.com>, <public-mw4d@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005b01c8fd1b$5099cc20$f1cd6460$@net>
Hi Joe


Thanks for the email.


I echo Stephane's thoughts from his email a few moments ago, and agree that
we should be clear about the specific targets for the Group's work. Audience
probably isn't the best word in light of what you say, and I think we can
come up with something a little more specific/clear.






From: public-mw4d-request@w3.org [mailto:public-mw4d-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of joe michiels
Sent: 13 August 2008 06:12
To: public-mw4d@w3.org
Cc: ken.banks@kiwanja.net
Subject: Re: Determining MW4D Core Values


Ken (and all), 
Long time reader first time writer. I've been catching up on the previous
minutes and hope to join this monday's call. In the meantime I have this
general feedback on the framework document. Please excuse me if I restate
feedback that's previously been discussed. 

Basically, I'm getting hung up on "Audience" as a confusing term. The target
underserved communities that would benefit from ICT are relatively clear,
but should we also state the target audience for the output of MW4D's
output/findings? Who is the overall framework/roadmap intended for (besides
members of the group)? The audience for this initiative seems to also
include W3C and non-W3C groups, other initiatives, as well as the
"providers". I've seen this discussed elsewhere in the wiki, but it seems
like a fundamental issue when stating the group's values/goals. So I'd
suggest a "focused population segment" (or something less wordy) of
"underserved communities" as you have stated in the pdf, and then a
separately stated target "audience" who are those that we are trying to
directly reach out to. 

Is this too nit-picky on semantics? I always want to make sure any goals
state who we're trying to talk to, not just what we're talking about.
Anyways, looking forward to participating more,

-Joe Michiels
jmichiels@gmail..com <mailto:jmichiels@gmail.com> 
Graduate Student - Foster School of Business (UW)  
Seattle, WA   

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Ken Banks, kiwanja.net
<donotreply@kiwanja.net> wrote:

Dear Group


Following our various teleconference discussions and email threads dealing
with the wide range of issues and decisions facing the Group, Stephane and I
felt that it might help move things along if we developed a simple framework
for the Group to work to. We intend this document to outline key, core
values as we move forward, and to outline the parameters of our work.


The document sets out to define technology choices, devices, audience,
providers and connectivity, and to set a working definition for "mobile


It is essential that we agree on a set of core values to avoid the Group
running off in different directions. The basic essence is this - to work
with what's available TODAY.


Comments are welcome in advance of the next teleconference on Monday, where
we will set an Agenda item to discuss it in more detail.


Many thanks.


Ken Banks

Founder, kiwanja.net


"Where technology meets anthropology, conservation and development"


Web: www.kiwanja.net


Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2008 08:06:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:07:08 UTC