Re: Webizen progress and next meeting

Hi Fellow Webizen,

I’ve been working in the area of applying ‘decentralised’ / RDF / Linked-data systems into civic environments (which in-turn has helped to flesh-out some of the identity related issues)and more recently, have registered the .org (etc.) term ‘web civics’
https://twitter.com/webcivics currently, using the branding to create some web-civic events, seeking to help with Free RWW Software Dev, etc. create public discourse / conversations around identity issues, data rights, etc.; looking at supporting development (by people i consider genius, who i feel thankful to work with) through civic engagement - (rdf, decentralised web, etc.).

Given what i was reading in the teleconf. mail - i also wanted to note that at this stage (but not forever) would be willing to donate them to W3C if their interested for the purpose of this work (i.e.: W3C has a much greater purpose than i could undertake, other than as being part of a team) and that i’ve often wondered about how business systems, documents and other more ‘business’ orientated objects could be open-sourced in a way, similar to code, as to act and support projects in the same way (software) developers do, when they’re doing ‘civic’ works...

I have also pondered what the “gap analysis" is between the http://webfoundation.org/ / https://webwewant.org/ and what Webizen might provide… 

in terms of ‘software dev’ a few examples include that, i’d really like to see an easy to use FOAF generator for rww.io or image processing plugged into it (version control & resizing of images), or an array of other functionality - which i’d happily contribute towards financially, if, the projects formed the correct structure in development.

Melvin’s http://webcredits.org/ work https://www.w3.org/community/webpayments/wiki/Web_Credits_OnBoarding - has the opportunity to help acknowledge contributors towards projects much more easily than was previously possible, yet, we still need to make a consumer-friendly wallet that works with rww.io (or similar LDP/RWW - http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/ReadWriteLinkedData.html / http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/CloudStorage.html services - a few exist in development or in the market).

LEAD ORGANISATION CONSIDERATION
I note; Tim’s presentation at the UN http://webtv.un.org/watch/tim-berners-lee-human-rights-day-2013-20-years-working-for-your-rights/2895794933001/ 

What is the ‘lead organisation’.  WebWeWant has been set-up, but looking at their site https://webwewant.org/about_us W3C isn’t listed.  If an array of ‘decentralised’ groups emerged, working on ‘web civics’ around the planet - during the continued introduction of RDF technologies (& web of trust, internet of things, etc.) what flag might they have, that makes a statement about values - acceptable behaviour, perhaps also - provide the uninitiated a method to show expectations of behaviour by those organising events, or other civic / public engagement activities.  

Commercial groups need standards, solutions - to be refined to a point where rolling technology out at enterprise levels is viable.  what better way to do it, than to encourage civic use of new technology for the good of communities…  Certainly would help to educate the vast array of stakeholders that now exist for web-tech, in ways that would have been unimaginable in the 1980’s.  We’re still geeks - i think… ?(better than the term ‘nerd’, and certainly the computer labs at high-school were rather empty at lunch-time when i grew-up.  i enjoyed the peace and quiet, kinda.)

I’m aware of an array of ‘open data’ groups.  then groups like http://assemblee-virtuelle.org/ and others, that i’m slowly getting to know.  Is their scope for the Webizen membership program to become a constituent of other more localised programs, that help feed matters that can be considered by W3C Groups - into these groups, perhaps incorporated into licensing related structures, etc.

In terms of project scope - i imagine that perhaps ‘non-commercial’ areas, perhaps recognised as ‘civics’ can and should be treated differently to that which has a reasonably considered commercial focus.  In many ways, the needs of decentralised web - is similar to the production of systems like linux, yet it’s not about the operation of computers - it’s about the operation of knowledge.  individual knowledge, incorporated knowledge, community knowledge, etc. 

The experts are around the world, not all in one place.  Contributors can do stuff that engage locals in events via teleconferencing / internet - engage people around the world.  It would be good if we could define a common-charter - or outline of ‘shared values’.   In past, i’ve been pointed at https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ - the principle still seems to be applicable.

No-matter who holds a membership as an agent - perhaps their views as an individual, could be better supported, as to make improvements in areas that may have sensitivities - yet meaningfully need to be debated, on behalf of everyone else who become the users of technology we all endeavour to make in a way that is meaningfully beneficial to the lives of ourselves and others, no-matter what degree of separation they are from us in our own lives.   I think also - we all respectively seek to participate in our governance systems - support our ‘rule of law’, however this is a territory based concept, and the ability to support, seek amendments to; in addition to other counterparts of citizenship,

I think finally - in terms of ‘scope’ - referring to Tim’s presentation http://youtu.be/u_2YWiaPJ6A (image is: http://www.w3.org/2007/09/map/main.jpg ) - their is an area in yellow - ‘the foothills of philosophy’, ‘philosophical engineering’ and ‘web science’ which i think very well presents a new area of scientific study (psychology, economics, social-sciences, etc.) that in-turn seeks to provide the greater population this world, represented by the ‘sea of interoperability’, efficiency, understanding and harmony. 

I think this webizen work is very important for the W3C and everybody who depends on the output of their / our work.

In my capacity, i participate in community groups on a basis of civics.  i don’t care who makes the products i believe need to exist - i know standards need to exist around them, else even if the products did exist - they’d create these ‘golden handcuffs’ upon users, who enter ‘the funnel’. 

So in the interests of civics, whether it’s acknowledged that my civic engagement is called ‘webcivics’ or that i have some sort of card that says i’m a W3C Webizen - don’t really care.  

Not enough people engage with the W3C to disperse the very important messages, information, facilitations of public discussion needed - to get knowledge, connected most-likely to Linked-Data related systems - into the hands of the innovators, who will in-turn solve the problems facing our humanity.  

So we need to come-up with a better way to engage, and as such - i’m very pleased to be part of the program, and hope i can make a meaningfully positive contribution to its success.

Bringing this down to the financial viability; It seems reasonable that local groups, might encourage memberships to local organisations - however those organisations, by way of agreement, may also become a w3c membership, handled locally. The way i’ve envisaged this easily - is by considering that (when i could afford it) my local yacht-club membership came with a state based yachting membership.  In this field, i think the purpose was insurance based.  However, in terms of W3C stuff - i imagine that whilst insurance is not a constituent of our requirements - their are other greater ledger items, such as the manifesto style of cultural development, that is borderless, by those already contributing to w3 works. 

Hope you find some useful concepts therein. 

Tim.

On 6 Aug 2014, at 7:09 pm, Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl> wrote:

> 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
> 
melvin is a mentor - i rarely disagree with his logic around the important stuff. 
> 
> 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 | www.dans.knaw.nl
> 
> Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!
> http://worldwidesemanticweb.org/
> 
> e-Humanities Group (KNAW)
>