Re: Webizen progress and next meeting

On 5 August 2014 23:57, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 5 August 2014 23:33, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>  Top posting to start a thread on a related idea.
>>
>> Some of the Webizen input was of the form - if Webizens do not get to
>> elect representatives who participate in Charter review - then no point in
>> having the program.
>>
>> Some of the input we received from the Advisory Committee was of the form
>> - if Webizens participate in the AC Charter review, then we have deprecated
>> Membership to a level that the AC is not comfortable with.
>>
>> Part of our challenge is to find the middle ground between these two
>> statements - which at first glance offer little in the form of middle
>> ground.
>>
>> Here is one idea that someone presented to me.  Have the Webizens elect
>> representatives.  Encourage them to participate in Charter review.  The
>> Director will (of course) pay heed to their input - as the Director always
>> cherishes input from the public.  But have this review outside of the
>> formal W3C process.
>>
>> This would give Webizens a tangible value.  But it would finesse some of
>> the AC concerns.
>>
>> It also might be a little too "cute".  Maybe Webizens would feel that
>> this does not provide real Charter review privileges.  Maybe the AC would
>> still be uncomfortable.
>>
>> I'm just thinking out loud.  Interested in input.
>>
>
> Thanks for initiating, imho, a fascination discussion.
>
> Democracy, which is the primary governance system of the world today, is
> based on the principle of "one man one vote".
>
> There's a certain problem in computing known as the "sybil attack" or
> "sock puppets" which can also be equated to "vote stuffing".  It's where a
> single entity can have a disproportionate effect on the reaching of
> consensus.
>
> What I'd love to see for webizens is an "opt-in" situation where people
> can join a community and have a say in the future of the web, but that one
> person can only have a single voice in the collective.
>
> All members of the group would also receive a dividend based on the
> commons, ie the common value creation.  In time, if enough value is
> created, in a fair way, the incentives will be for more and more people to
> become webizens, and benefit mutually form the process.
>
> Just my $0.02
>


Hi,

Interesting discussion indeed. I would also me leaning towards the "one
person / one vote" side and suggest we forget about this idea of having the
Webizens elect representatives that would act as ACs. Actually, I think
this is how ACs currently work. Unless I'm mistaken, their are appointed by
a member organisation following some internal (democratic ?) decision
process and consult within the organisation before giving official
feedback. In that sense, I'd says all members of the member organisation
are Webizens that already use their AC as a representative.

Focusing on the individual Webizen could maybe motivate them more to join.
A "you join, you vote" would be stronger and more seducing than a "you
join, you pick up someone that can vote for you" but we may give a
collective lower value to the recommendations provided by the Webizens than
to that provided by the members in order to preserve the advantages of
being an AC. Let's say, e.g., that during a charter review AC can provided
individual feedback and block the charter whereas all the Webizen comments
are merged as one "Webizen feedback" that can not be considered to block
the charter in its review process. This global review would then have a
list of contributors to list those who contributed to it without pin
pointing to the individual contributions. With such a system, one willing
to just have a say will be able to do it via a Webizen status whereas
giving more direct, and eventually blocking, feedback will require a full
membership status.

Christophe


-- 
Onderzoeker
+31(0)6 14576494
christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl

*Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)*

DANS bevordert duurzame toegang tot digitale onderzoeksgegevens. Kijk op
www.dans.knaw.nl voor meer informatie. DANS is een instituut van KNAW en
NWO.


Let op, per 1 januari hebben we een nieuw adres:

DANS | Anna van Saksenlaan 51 | 2593 HW Den Haag | Postbus 93067 | 2509 AB
Den Haag | +31 70 349 44 50 | info@dans.knaw.nl <info@dans.kn> |
www.dans.knaw.nl


*Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!*
http://worldwidesemanticweb.org/

*e-Humanities Group (KNAW)*
[image: eHumanities] <http://www.ehumanities.nl/>