W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mw4d@w3.org > August 2009

Re: MW4D Roadmap Document-- comments

From: Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:02:16 +0200
Message-ID: <4A803678.8050101@w3.org>
To: Mira Slavova <mira@mmd4d.org>
CC: public-mw4d@w3.org
Hi Mira,

thanks for your comments.
My view.

> Section 2, Paragraph 1-2: Even though the Digital Divide is a worthwhile 
> concept, I am not sure if it would give us the best opening. It seems to 
> have been replaced by concept such as "digital opportunity", "digital 
> provide" and "transformational technology". i would suggest opening with 
> something along these lines.

agreed. focusing on the digital divide is definetly a bad idea.

> Section 2, Paragraph 3: The reference by Leonard Waverman, Meloria 
> Meschi and Melvyn Fuss of LBS is dated 2005 which I think is too old. It 
> is also based on measure on the macroeconomic scale which is probably 
> inappropriate. In terms of economic studies the ones by Jensen (India) 
> and Muto (Uganda) which are included on the page of resources I think 
> demonstrate the benefit of mobile technology. Another similar economic 
> study is by Aker, a copy of which I am attaching.

agreed too.

> I am also attaching a copy of Jonathan Donner's recent article on the 
> blurring of livelihoods and lives in the use of mobile technology. I'm 
> not sure if he is somehow part of MW4D but I find his argument very 
> convinsing. I think his perspective is relevant to the write-up of the 
> roadmap and he even mentions the group explicitly. I think he might be a 
> very interesting guest contributor to our discussions.

i know well Jonathan and he was part of the speakers in the workshop in 
maputo (http://www.w3.org/2008/10/MW4D_WS/ ). I believe he is following 
our discussions and work. i will certainly ask for comments.

> Section 3: Even though the objectives are clearly stated I think this 
> section needs to become a bit tighter. I would suggest reducing it to 2 
> paragraphs, one for each objective. The last sentence might serve well 
> as an opening.

i agree on moving up the last sentence to the first place. about 
shortening, is there any specific pieces you believe that are redundant ?

> Section 4: I think this section also needs a bit of thightening. I think 
> it might be best if the content of the footnote in included in the 
> sentence opening the bullet list of audiences. The order of the list 
> also seems to be of significance. I suggest rewriting the list so that 
> it consists of two bullet points. Something along the lines of 
> "technology developers" and "international development community". Each 
> point could list different actors from the surrent list who might be 
> pursuing the respective objective of our roadmap. Thereby, the list of 
> audiences will be congruent to the stated objectives of the document. 
> That will build some continuity between sections 3 and 4.

i'm not perosnnaly sure i agree with this comment. i believe that there 
are more than the 2 categories you mention. particularly ngos or 
entrepreneur wiling to design and deliver specific services which are 
not in the inteernational development community. i also believe that 
academics, people working in the field and donors are 3 different pieces 
even if part of the internation development community.
Policy makers are also yet another category.
same for technology developers, i feel it is a bit too vague.
So let't see what other thinks.
i'm also not very enthusiastic about stating as an opening sentence that 
the roadmap is a technical document.

but again, let's see where the consensus is in the group.

> Section 5: The name of the section is a bit of a misnomer. Essentially 
> it lists topics which are out of scope. I think this should be made 
> clear in the title and I would suggest positioning the section 
> immediately before the conclusion.

here also i would be happy to get the group's view on that.
Most of the documents i read have a scope section at the beginning so 
that readers know what is out of scope. with the motivation section we 
setup the big picture, with the objective who landscape of our research, 
and in the scope we define the exact footprint we are adressing in the 
landscape. So i tend to think that it is at the right place.

Thanks again for the comment and i just implemented the first two 
comments, and part of the third one. waiting for other people opinion on 
the last two ones.

I also implemented the resoltion of the day about infrastructure, cost 
and mobile device (in the scope sectin and costs section)
> -- 
> Dr Mira Slavova
> ICT4D Consultant
> Mobile Market Design 4 Development
> mmd4d.org <http://mmd4d.org>
> ++44 (0)7734 408829
> -- 
> Dr Mira Slavova
> ICT4D Consultant
> Mobile Market Design 4 Development
> mmd4d.org <http://mmd4d.org>
> ++44 (0)7734 408829

Stephane Boyera		stephane@w3.org
W3C				+33 (0) 5 61 86 13 08
BP 93				fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,		
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 15:02:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:07:10 UTC