Re: Webizen progress and next meeting

On Aug 4, 2014 1:39 PM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/4/2014 1:04 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 4, 2014 12:56 PM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/4/2014 12:52 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 4, 2014 12:29 PM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks to all who participated in last Friday's call.
>> >> >
>> >> > The Doodle poll for the next call is at [1].
>> >> >
>> >> > The agenda is to review the inputs that people have been putting
into the wiki [2].
>> >> >
>> >> > Some of the more specific points to discuss:
>> >> > We had good consensus on the Goals at the last call.  We should try
to finalize by this meeting.
>> >> > We agreed to use the Twitter questionnaire as a means to assess
what should go into the program.  I've drafted a sample questionnaire.  I'm
not sure if we'll be able to conclude on this questionnaire at the next
meeting; but we probably need to get close and finalize it by the following
meeting.
>> >> > Julian continues to look at getting us some professional help as
well.
>> >> >
>> >> > Jeff
>> >> >
>> >> > [1] http://doodle.com/n8szipz24xxad5nz
>> >> > [2] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen
>> >>
>> >> At the risk of sounding like a broken record, developers have no
first-class voice with regard to w3c matters, especially with regard to
direction in terms of TAG and AB  - at least for WGs we have possibility
for invited experts, but IEs have the same issue: while granted status for
WGs, they have no (even collective) representation. I understand that some
membership was opposed to this, but is it just off the table?  I don't see
anything in the survey even hinting at this.
>> >
>> >
>> > In my book, nothing is off the table.  However, I am trying to
represent where the task force currently is thinking.  No one in the task
force indicated any interest in this at the last call, so I suppose it is
off the table unless it gets traction in some way in the task force.
>> >
>> >
>> I'm pretty sure I did in irc on the last call?
>
>
> I suggest that you join the next call (rather than IRC only) so you can
debate the issue with people who disagree.

I did do a /me apology that dialing in was not an option for me because of
problems with my phone and I would attempt to for the next call (seems they
aren't logged)

The purpose of the task force is to have people with differing views come
together and develop a consensus.  That doesn't happen if one point of view
makes some remarks on IRC without introducing them into the conversation.
>

> Further, imho, even looking at the IRC log after the fact it was not
clear what you were saying in IRC.  I looked back at the record and I see
six comments that I suppose is where you think you said that there needs to
be collective representation.  They are:
>
> <bkardell_> As I said previously... We have enough swag
> <bkardell_> The benefit is membership and representation
> <bkardell_> I agree with ACS on this
> <bkardell_> Correct me: invited experts have no ac representation, right?
> <jeff> brian, Correct.
> <bkardell_> So, again, I think this is the primary goal of a Webizen
program.
> <bkardell_> A way to collectively create "unions" with ac reps
>
> But to me it is confusing.  I don't know what you mean by swag (1).  I'm
not clear who you are agreeing with (3) - were you agreeing with the AC
that we should not have an electoral college?  It is not clear what "this"
refers to (5).  And the word unions is a reserved term (at least in US law)
and noone is talking about unions (6).
>
It seems context to the irc is important and reading through it looks clear
to me still.. http://www.w3.org/2014/08/01-webizen-irc

12:35:17 [veronica]... Brainstorming: the design of the program
12:35:42 [veronica]... to recall, previous proposal we had a market basket
of goodies
12:36:07 [veronica]... cost was $100 to join to help defray some costs and
also get some goodie, mug, shirt ...12:36:27 [bkardell_]As I said
previously... We have enough swag

(Swag: t-shirts, stickers, mugs, tote bags and other trinkets.)

12:36:45 [veronica]... But, Webizens collectively could somehow have some
limited powers to participate
12:36:53 [bkardell_]The benefit is membership and representation

(That's THE benefit IMO..is it not clear?)

12:37:03 [veronica]... AC opinions: too many goodies cheapened the program
12:37:18 [bkardell_]I agree with ACS on this

(Seems like a direct response, unless I misunderstand minutes.  Mugs,
stickers, etc cheapen it.  The benefit is representation)

Similarly, the rest of my comments are replies of a similar vein, I
describe the same thing.  My reference to ”unions" is in quotes and in
response about the benefit being some kind of organization around
collective representation.

> To make matters worse, I have extracted the above segment from 30 lines
which scribe what was being discussed on the call.  If you include those 30
lines interspersed, it is even harder to piece together that you were
proposing something.
>
I've read it thrice and it seems clear to me each time.  Perhaps it's
because it's my own thoughts m I'm sorry that I was unable to call in on
this occasion, but it is reality that even WGs deal with that occasionally
some individuals are only able to participate via irc. If it's like
anything else, many more follow the mail list than attend calls or even
irc, so I offered follow up via email as well.  I'm honestly not sure what
more I could have done, we have limits and constraints.  It's feedback and
questions, take it for what it is.

> So, please join the next call and provide your input.

I will certainly attempt to.  In the meantime, my position remains
consistent for months and my question was simply that I didn't see anything
on the questionnaire, was it off the table.  If off, I'm not sure I see
what real benefit there could be.  Seems important to me.