Re: Webizen progress and next meeting

On 8/4/2014 3:54 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 4, 2014 1:39 PM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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
>

I don't need an apology.  I was just explaining why it was hard for your 
input to get discussed.

> 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)
>

Calls are 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.)
>

Sorry.  Not in my active vocabulary.

> 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?)
>

To me it was totally unclear.  It has been clear from the beginning that 
the Webizen program is NOT about membership; even though we discussed 
representation.  So saying the benefit is membership and representation 
was very confusing to me.

> 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.
>

Great.

> 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.
>

Well my position was also consistent for months that we should have the 
AC electoral college.  Then we did a reset because the original proposal 
didn't fly.  So we are looking for the new task force to figure out a 
new proposal that will win acceptance.