Re: Webizen progress and next meeting

On 8/6/2014 5:09 AM, Christophe Guéret wrote:
> On 5 August 2014 23:57, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com 
> <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 5 August 2014 23:33, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org
>     <mailto: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.

This is an interesting proposal.

As Art points out W3C already solicits input from the public.

So we can provide Webizens some meeting place to discuss issues and they 
can then (individually or collectively) weigh in as a semi-organized set 
of public responders.

>
> Christophe
>
>
> -- 
> Onderzoeker
> +31(0)6 14576494
> christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl <mailto:christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
>
> *Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)*
>
> DANS bevordert duurzame toegang tot digitale onderzoeksgegevens. Kijk 
> op www.dans.knaw.nl <http://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 
> <mailto:info@dans.kn> | www.dans.knaw.nl
>
>
> *Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!*
> http://worldwidesemanticweb.org/
>
> *e-Humanities Group (KNAW)*
> eHumanities <http://www.ehumanities.nl/>