W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webizen@w3.org > October 2014

Re: Consolidated results of the public Webizen survey

From: Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 10:27:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CABP9CAF5XX2ny4f_uO=++syOV2Nhx5qtsV-Rfg5h=ZnEJsLwUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
CC: "public-webizen@w3.org" <public-webizen@w3.org>
Thanks Coralie! This is an interesting reading. It's great to see that many
respondents had something to say in plus :)

Two points that caught my attention in particular are the "don't make it
too cheap otherwise you get swag collectors in" and the point about Mozilla
working on a similar program and the implied opportunities for

The first one goes against several calls for lowering the fees, even to the
point of making the membership free, but I agree the amount of money paid
should be substantial enough to act as a filter. It should however still be
a filter on motivations rather than a filter on wealth status and that's
where it will get tricky. For some swag collectors 100$ will probably still
be nothing while this would already come as a big barrier for motivated
students :-\

Looking at how Mozilla embraces the usage of Web standards in FirefoxOS it
could be tempting to work with them for a community membership too.
Webizens could then impact both the evolution of the standards and a direct
implementation of them. I would still however not jump on it because the
W3C and Mozilla have (IMHO) different status and positioning on the global
market of standards/implementations. I think it would be best to keep that
distinction as is.


On 2 October 2014 18:44, Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Webizen task force,
> Further to the quick overview I sent to the public list of the task force
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webizen/2014Oct/0000.html
> ... here are the consolidated results.
> We received a total of 205 answers (a team member did sneak in their
> response!)
> WBS: 181 answers have been received.
> This questionnaire was open from 2014-09-10 to 2014-09-30 (21 days)
> Typeform: 24 answers.
> Open between Sat. 2014-09-27 and Tue. 2014-09-30 (4 days)
> ============
> Q1: Should W3C reach out to the broader Web community to create such a
> program for increased affiliation?
> Yes: 195
>   No:  10
> Q2: Would you be interested in joining this program?
> Show me where to sign up :)........ 87
> Probably........................... 62
> Depends on benefits................ 26
> I'd need time to think about it.... 21
> No.................................  9
> Q3: Should the program be designed as a minimalist program (point A)?
> Point A: The minimalist extreme asserts that there does not need to be any
> initial set of benefits, just provide a virtual identity and people who
> want a greater affiliation with W3C will sign up.
> Yes, any tangible benefits diminishes the program....  17
> It should start minimalist........................... 119
> No.................................................... 47
> I don't know.......................................... 22
> Q4: Should there be benefits that increase W3C posture as a community
> (point B)?
> Point B: Some have argued that there should at least be benefits which
> help make W3C more into a "community".
> Yes..................... 133
> No......................   7
> Not important to me.....  65
> Q5: If you answered yes to the previous question, which of the following
> would be interesting?
> Ranked from most to least popular:
> Name listed on our Supporters page (with # years)...... 99
> Listing your profile on the W3C website................ 93
> Teleconference organized once annually by the CEO...... 93
> "participation points" for every spec reviewed......... 82
> Voice in a Community blog linked from W3C blog......... 78
> A unique ID number (associated with this program)...... 69
> A two-hour welcoming session to explain how W3C works.. 68
> A "flourish" next to name in list of participants...... 45
> Q6: Should there be tangible benefits to this program (point C)?
> Point C: Others have argued that people should get tangible benefits with
> monetary value.
> Yes..................... 55
> No.....................  51
> Not important to me..... 99
> Q7: If you answered yes to the previous question, which of the following
> would be interesting?
> Ranked from most to least popular:
> Discounts of W3C services........ 90
> Annual T-shirt................... 63
> Stickers, mug, other 'goodies'... 60
> Participation T-shirt design..... 30
> Q8: Should there be a mechanism where Webizens are represented at the
> decision making of W3C (point D)?
> Point D: Still others have argued that this should be more than
> "affiliation", that people that sign up for this program should get some
> benefits reserved for Members of W3C.
> Yes..................... 121
> No.....................   40
> Not important to me...... 44
> Q9: If you answered yes to the previous question, would the creation of
> different Developer Groups under the Webizen banner - to provide AC
> Charter review be an adequate form of representation?
> yes.. 102
> no...  39
> (64 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)
> Q10: Should we name this program the Webizen program?
> That's the perfect name...........  37
> Not great, but good enough........ 102
> No, please choose a better name...  64
> Suggested names:
> * netizen
> * W3C individual member
> * Defender of the Web
> * Protector of the Web
> * W3C Developer
> * W3C Individual Participant
> * W3C Reviewer (if reviewing specs is the focus)
> * webfolk
> * W3C associate member
> * W3 Professional
> * Community forum
> * Domain Expert Advisors
> * Friends of the W3C
> * Digital Citizen <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_citizen>
>   <
> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/03/11/im-a-citizen-of-the-internet-where-do-i-get-my-passport/
> >
> * Vox Populi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_populi>
> * W3C Affiliate Program
> * W3C Community Program
> * W3C Affiliation
> * W3CSupport
> * W3C Members
> * W3Citizens
> * W3C Individual Participants
> * Webbies
> * Plebians
> * webgarden
> * Developer voice
> * Developer Voices|Members|Participants
> * Developer Advocates
> * W3C Community Supporter
> * W3C Champion
> * Native of the Web
> * Web Resident
> * Webineer (Play on web pioneer)
> * Open Web Supporter
> * Net Community
> * W3C Stewards
> * WebStweard
> * Webfluence
> * The W3C Contributors' program
> * Web Masters (Guild?)
> * WebMatters
> * WebPlatform
> * WebPlayform Specs
> Longer comment on Webizen naming:
> * Just make it a level of "membership". If people are paying money,
> they're members. They may not have the same level of membership as a
> company but if you take money that's what it is.
> eg. "Developer member"
> * Something with terms like advise, think tank or soundboard. What i
> gather is the meaning of the group. 'Webizen' is the name of the target
> audience, ie not descriptive. Better to give it a name relating to the
> function, in which the added value of the group sounds.
> * If you are going to collect money from people, please frame it as a
> personal Membership with some kind of light version of Member benefits.
> * For Japanese people, Webizen sounds and looks like Wabizen. Wabi and zen
> are both Japanese traditional concepts: Wabi is the central concept of
> Haiku poem and zen is, of course, an important Buddhist philosophy in
> Japan.
> Wabi alone is good. Zen alone is also good. But if you put wabi and zen
> together, it sounds really weird to at least educated people in Japan.
> * why do you folks insist on drawing a distinction between "the web" and
> the Internet?! there's already a perfectly good term: netizen.
> Q11: What are your own perspective on this program and ideas you may have?
> I found 3 negative comments.
> [I have not copied comments which were only  general encouragement.
>   In some cases, I've shortened the comments or paraphrased.
>   In most cases I've copied the entire comment.
>   When I thought it was relevant, I pre-pended between brackets
>    the capacity of the commenter.]
> * It is unclear to me if $100 is too little to ask. Every extra dollar (or
> appropriate local currency) helps W3C, so setting this value correctly is
> important. I strongly suggest asking MIT experimental economists how to
> price this correctly.
> * If the W3C "doors are opened" to a wider community, having educational
> materials about how the W3C works (as a *community*, wrt. etiquette, etc.)
> would be *very* important. I would almost make it "mandatory reading".
> * Any benefit (other than cheap swag) should be awarded on merit such as
> level of participation, leadership, awareness, activity driving etc.
> * Watch out for companies who could sponsor, say, 100 individual
> participants and thereby influence decisions unfairly.
> * The oligarchy of developers is a bad thing, not a good thing. So we
> should not reach out to developers but to all people concerned by or about
> the Web.
> * Larger choice of goodies might appeal to a larger audience.
> * The process for commenting on public documents (for non-Members and
> non-IE) is not clearly documented, overly complicated, and doesn't always
> work. There is no current strong mechanism for getting those insights to
> the appropriate Working Groups. It's not about privileging people who pay
> money to the W3C, it's about the expertise of people outside of that
> structure which is currently DENIED to the W3C.
> * The more participation that the W3 can encourage the better. I think the
> benefits far outweigh any concerns.
> * Tangible benefits, such as t-shirts and such, should be made available
> as options for people to buy separately. Similarly, donations/fees might
> be a separate concern. Solidarity and identity with W3C, and feedback into
> the technical and priority agendas, should be separate from any financial
> transactions or goods.
> * It would be nice if we didn't have to have commercial/corporate
> sponsorship in order to have a useful voice in the proceedings. Something
> more along the lines of the IETF.
> * Webizens can be treated as another advisory group, but one that does not
> gain the right to join working groups or vote to move standards along the
> recommenation track. They would be consulted for questions such as
> determining which topics to include in the yearly headlights initiatives,
> discovering new issues that the W3C should address, and guiding policy for
> invited experts. I see no particular value in breaking them into smaller
> groups (front-end developers, accessibility enthusiasts, etc.--I think I
> would fit in all the groups suggested). We should use the power of the web
> to enable a directly democratic advisory body that is "for everyone".
> * Being able to actively participate as an independent individual to W3C
> groups.
> * Having a voice in changing specs as well as asking for help to implement
> them.
> * Developers that have demonstrably implemented a draft specification
> should have a platform to voice their opinions in a way that affects W3C
> process.
> * You could introduce the concept of levels of membership, where one is
> free or nearly so, and others cost increasingly more but give more
> benefits. I have always been interested in "joining" the W3C but not as a
> corporation. If there were a way to do that, I think that I and some other
> people who are habitual invited experts would be interested.
> * Given that I *can* participate w/o any Member affiliation today (even
> though I am affiliated at the moment, I'm thinking ahead to "life after X"
> when I'll have more time to give back), what is w3c expecting from me to
> justify the title "webizen"? If you expect nothing but give out benefits,
> we know where that dynamic goes. You need to have some non-zero
> expectation on webizens articulated to separate the populations; that may
> in turn feed back into how you process the responses.
> * I think some way of allowing more people who care about the web to
> become involved can only be a good thing.
> * A common perspective seems to be that W3C is essential, but is out of
> touch with needs of modern development due mostly to its small tight nit
> community with a high barrier to entry.
> * Excellent idea. There don't need to be many benefits, just the ability
> for very keen supporters of W3C to get official recognition and feel a
> sense of inclusion.
> * Most of the academic people are used to register annually to "scientific
> societies" such as IEEE, ACM, etc. Those individual annual membership fees
> are generally paid by the employer. I would suggest that W3C should be
> considered and recognized as a scientific society and I would bet that
> this would trigger a very large number of new individual members from
> academia.
> * [from an AC rep] Some thoughts:
> W3C absolutely needs a place for developers to be heard directly by W3C
> and to give them insight into the W3C process, but I really don't think
> "Webizen" is a good name. Is there anyone in the AC who has connections to
> corporate advertising/marketing droids? What about someone like David
> Ezell? Daniel Jaffe? Rachel Thomas?
> Question 5/Point "A": I'm ambivalent about this. Giving access to W3C with
> a chance to observe and possibly influence what we do seems like a good
> place to start. Throw in a coffee mug and a "flourish" and you have a
> deal. But when you start talking about "Member-like" benefits you're
> inviting a fight about diluted Member status (and like every AC rep I have
> an annual brawl with Management when justifying our dues and then getting
> them paid).
> Questions 6-9/Points "B" and "C": Nominal Webizen membership dues should
> be mandatory (maybe in the $50-$100 range), primarily because we're
> fishing for dedicated professionals with good opinions, not people who
> collect stickers, mugs, or T-shirts (but I think having tangibles is an
> absolute requirement here). W3C will have to charge something for the swag
> in any case. People don't value things they don't pay for and a $50 or
> $100 coffee mug counts as a status symbol of sorts. One problem with swag
> is that W3C needs to avoid getting tangled up in the details of operating
> a storefront, which means hiring a vendor to handle it (another reason for
> annual dues).
> Questions 10-12/Point "D": I don't see any reason to dilute Member
> benefits in the name of supporting "affiliations" -- I believe that all we
> need to set up at this time is a forum where independent and small-company
> developers can make themselves collectively heard and thereby influence
> the course of W3C standards development.
> * Increasing engagement and making the participation process more
> democratic to those who haven't yet progressed to Invited Expert or full
> Member stage would hopefully help transition folks to get more involved to
> shape the future.
> * I would like to participate in this program in order to see progress in
> accessibility technologies and, if possible, to give my ideas and testing
> efforts to make web accessibility better for the users.
> * Grassroots input for all users.
> * I don't think that AC charter review is what developers are looking for.
> The developers I know want to publicly support W3C (and be recognized for
> that), and be taken seriously when they comment on a list or spec.
> * My interest would depend on participating in areas that directly affect
> my work, and also for support from my employer. E.g. it would be tough to
> do a lot of W3C work strictly on my own time. Hence, some form of publicly
> visible recognition of participation that shows my employer in a positive
> light would be desirable.
> * Great idea but make sure folks get to use a frontend for participation
> which stems from this era.  The [public-vocabs] means to communicate make
> communication and adding referrals a tedious business. [also] When can
> multiple people finally work together on a document in real-time?
> * Maybe you should think of an incremental fee, and the more someone is
> willing to pay for, the more of these perks he or she might get. Because
> ultimately, I'd hope that this would be another way to crowdfund in part
> W3C activities... so I wouldn't want the vast majority of the money to go
> up in smoke in goodies and such. I'd want the W3C to be able to benefit
>  from it.
> * Cut drastically the membership fees.
> * The Unicode Consortium has Individual Membership. You might want to look
> at that.
> * [from a W3C Invited Expert] There are a number of us independent
> researchers and developers that can and will provide expert opinions as
> well as practical development experience. However, 'paying' large
> membership fees and then adding in to that donating our time is just not
> economically viable. A smaller fee as mentioned above along with the
> ability to provide input and vote can move the W3C in a positive direction.
> * You talk about groups of developers, but what about all the rest of us.
> Designers of all kinds, writers, authors, small business owners... and
> even users.
> Too many of the W3C standards that affect the user experience are created
> without the input of either experts in UX or those on whom the results of
> the new standards will be inflicted.
> Imagine if real forms designers had been part of the (awful) forms code.
> Or content specialists & art directors considered in writing the
> figure/img tags. So many problems could have been avoided!
> * As question 11 suggests, some highly relevant perspectives are not
> necessarily well-represented. An approach that meaningfully involves these
> groups would be a big step in the right direction, provided that
> expectations were appropriately managed.
> * "Non-members" can contribute to any work currently under development. If
> their suggestions have merit, I rather doubt their lack of membership is
> going to impact acceptance of their suggestions.
> Rather than emphasizing the "member" versus "non-member" distinction, I
> would create a "voting member" and "working member" categories, with
> different membership requirements. "Voting members" would carry on as they
> are presently and vote on the administrative aspects of the W3C. "Working
> members" who consist of employees of "voting members," "invited experts,"
> and "working members" who meet some criteria for interest in and expertise
> at a particular specification activity. Like an "invited expert" but
> without heavy weight machinery.
> Emphasis on the different concerns of different classes of membership
> would go a long way to not creating a feeling of second class citizenship.
> Or at least it would minimize it more than the "in your face" type
> approach that appears to be the present position.
> Being able to participate in teleconferences for example, should be
> sufficient for most working members. After all, if you have to win votes
> for a technical position, you haven't been very persuasive in presenting
> your position.
> * Openness is key. Individuals able to help is key. And definitely cut
> down on barriers to entry from disadvantaged people.
> * It should be very minimalist and cost nothing to affiliates. But W3C
> could user their voice on community blogs and inputs to gather expertise
> of community members interested in helping nut with no money to
> "affiliate".
> Being minimalist and only providing a badge of support helps to spread
> awareness of W3C through the "W3C Affiliation Program" and maybe if some
> affiliate could bring new paid members to W3C they could be rewarded with
> a (limited?) membership as well.
> * I would probably participate, however only for free.
> * [from a former Team member] This sounds like a great idea, it could
> harness energy and increase participation from a great many people. This
> would increase the quantifiable support for W3C specifications as well as
> potentially spread the enormous workload that is undertaken by W3C Team,
> members and their representatives.
> * [from a W3C Office staff member] You could consider having multiple
> fees, like you get also a t-shirt if you pay more, you get a vote and
> access to conferences if you pay even more. With that poor people could
> also participate and you get extra money from those who have.
> * [from an AC Rep] Some have argued that a webizen with some kind of
> representation in decision making would diminish the value of full w3c
> membership (especially relevant for full members). I think this is not
> true or at any rate this could be mitigated in various ways. The key value
> of this program is to get more developer community involvement and
> participation in w3c and to increase the transparency of w3c decision
> making processes and governance. This is important because the w3c plays a
> stewardship role of the "commons" of the web - a role which is held in
> trust of the larger community of developers, implementers and web users,
> not only of w3c members. In my view the W3C needs to expand its definition
> of its stakeholder group to include this wider community if it wants to
> retain its position as a steward of the web for the long term.
> * [from a W3C Invited Expert] Introducing a "second class citizens"
> membership grade and throwing a load of W3C-branded tat and a token
> farcical accountability-theatre phone call at the masses is completely
> missing the point, in my view.
> The W3C needs open participation, not separate developer groups.
> This effort would be better directed at enforcing a participation policy,
> and using it to kick out the toxic W3C time-servers who behave so
> appallingly they drive everyone else away. Obviously this would be
> difficult as many of them are in charge. Mainly because they've driven
> everyone else away. So recognising and addressing this problem would be
> one way of improving participation.
> Regarding the ideas in this survey, it's hard to imagine a better way of
> highlighting the chasm the W3C still has to cross. An invitation to an
> annual teleconference organised by the CEO - was this suggested by the
> CEO? I can't imagine how anyone else would view this as something worth
> joining for.
> Anyway I may well be completely wrong, and it may well be the case that a
> slight increase in carefully-circumscribed participation from people who
> derive satisfaction from having a flourish next to their name and taking
> part in t-shirt design competitions is exactly what the W3C needs, so feel
> free to ignore me.
> * It sounds like a great idea to engage those of us that have an interest
> the work of the W3C but for whatever reason felt Membership was too big of
> a step.
> * W3C Members largely seem to be corporate implementers instead of
> developers and independent Open Source implementers (like myself),
> developers/authors of which are supposed to be higher in the priority of
> constituencies. Of course, first you need implementations, and gathering
> implementer support around W3C Recommendations at all is the top priority.
> Letting implementers know that there exists a demand by developers for
> compliant implementations, clearly and loudly, seems to be the highest
> goal.
> I'm fond of Web Platform Docs as another way of connecting with developers.
> * Many of these questions lead down a predetermined path. If devs STILL
> feel like their input isn't being taken seriously, the program will do far
> more damage than good.
> A problem the W3C has is the lack of actual
> authors/implementers/developers involved in the process. We are told there
> are community groups and email lists where you can discuss things... but
> there are two problems: signing up and posting is one of the most
> difficult and confusing processes I've ever encountered and most people
> probably give up; and secondly it's clear that we can have all the
> opinions we like but for many Working Groups we're shouting into the void.
> With others you're better off commenting on bug reports.
> I'm not sure $100-level membership solves these issues.
> This whole idea could probably be avoided by providing a mid-range
> membership option for companies. [...]
> Anyway. One method that could work for the $100 level membership: let
> people vote on questions with their membership. That vote does not
> determine the decision but the data could be used by the WG.
> Use the money to make email list signup process actually easy; or perhaps
> use a Stack Overflow style Q&A instead of email lists with obscure archive
> formats. Let people upvote and downvote answers or suggestions.
> * I don't like the idea of gamification like used on SO etc, that promotes
> devs with a lot of time on their hands just to put quantity in to get
> virtual points or whatever.
> I think it should be clearer and easier (at least for people that have
> shown talent and are members of a web dev community) to become an invited
> expert. I wouldn't like the floodgates to open, where every man and his
> dog is a member of a Working Group, like the HTML working group, as that
> devalues the people that are a real invited expert that is doing actual
> work, rather than just listing their name to make themselves look good.
> Maybe getting some official representation from existing (or new?)
> communities in a working group would be a good idea, maybe where a "chair"
> or some such elected by that community gets to be in a working group (or x
> number of people from that community.) I'm not sure if we have many
> official communities like that though. It is usually more unofficial
> communities on things like Twitter. There are a few like Web Standards
> Group (if that still exists) and Frontiers in Holland.
> * [from an AC rep] Benefits should be of a non-tangible form "strictu
> sensu" - i.e. not a *thing* that you can put in your hand. Simply because
> the cost of managing such things is relatively high, and the benefit to
> people who get them relatively low.
> Discounts on services is a real benefit to some, irrelevant to others, but
> presumably not costly to manage, and therefore worth sharing. Discounts on
> W3C services especially so, since it makes them even more competitive with
> other services in the market (although it invites more of my "stop
> claiming to be vendor-neutral when you actually compete with some of your
> members" ranting).
> Participation points for spec reviews is IMHO a bad idea. We want
> thoughtful careful review, and getting random comments to show that
> somebody did the minimum to get a badge provides a mismatch of motives,
> which may well be to the detriment of the Working Group making the spec.
> IMHO it is far more important to protect the Working Group than to
> motivate webizens.
> * As a former representative to the W3C on behalf of a member (US-based
> company), I'm eager to find a way to continue participating in the W3C in
> the same or similar ways. I'm not an invited expert but I am a very
> interested party!
> * Greater participation in the creation, reviewing and advocating of these
> standards is of the utmost importance.
> * I think it's a great idea, but just having a community on a forum is
> rather boring. Things need to be gamified to make users interested in
> participating. Making achievements, badges and such would be a good start
> much like stackoverflow or world of warcraft (maybe feats of strength,
> hard modes, etc.).
> This would give users a sense of pride and achievement that they could
> display on a linked profile or some such thing and get more people
> involved in the specification process.
> * There should be a feedback mechanism for all roles & should have scoring
> points for implementation effectiveness.
> * This survey has made me laugh A LOT. It seems to perfectly reflect the
> bureaucratic tendencies of the W3C. Sooo much preamble and waffle, so much
> hand-wringing, so much complexity for what should have been a very
> lightweight, quick survey to gauge interest. By the end of the survey
> you've almost talk yourself out of the whole idea!
> Best of luck!
> * On the wiki, the benefits listed for the subscribers don't seem to
> provide enough value compared to just posting to mailing lists to bother
> with this program.
> * I do see it as one of the major flaws of the W3C that it exchanges money
> for voice in the web standards process. Therefore I'm seeing this as a
> good first step in the right direction.
> #I don't get that comment, it seems to contradict istself.
> * Input should not be limited to developers. There are strategic issues,
> such as level structure - what is A? AA? AAA? Non-developers can
> contribute good insight into such strategic issues.
> * Her [?] more involved to Recommendation process to see where I can help
> without finding a company that pays the hugh membership fees.
> * Use many eyes to ptioritize.
> * Use social media to spread the word out. Let people join the community.
> (More users.. more participants - More participants.. more resources -
> More resources.. more productivity).
> Teach participants about the functioning of W3C, and about the expected
> roles. The more the community make the participants understand their role,
> benefits for W3C will also increase substantially. Make participants
> participate in some community (small/big, silly/worthy but interesting)
> activity periodically which will keep them in pace with the community
> actions. Hope, this will help Webizen community to go to the next level.
> * If there's a fee, don't pretend you're listening to “webizens” — you're
> listening only to the ones that are both able and willing to pay, and
> that's a very small subset. The rest already likes to put you down, and it
> will surely backfire.
> If you want to brighten up your image (and you should), open input from
> everyone and make it so that it cannot get out of control. Yes, this is
> far away from your current culture and you will need external help. But
> this you know how to do, the HTML/CSS logos really worked.
> * The ideas presented in 11 are a start but greater influence from the
> broader community is required on all outcomes not just ones presented by
> the community. See EME extensions backlash as an example.
> * Ultimately we are talking about things that are to be implemented.
> Doesn't matter if we agree on a specification or any part thereof which is
> not implemented. So this is not just about the value of membership but
> about what a specification is for in the first place.
> I have looked at community groups - and on the whole been thoroughly
> unimpressed. Especially the coremob group. Sure some victory might be
> claimed but .. I think that the W3C needs to be honest to itself and to
> everyone out there. Sometimes I hear the cry for developers as though we
> are some homogeneous mass. Then we hear that we should vote for developers
> on TAG or elsewhere, these developers tend to be high profile individuals
> and/or big company representatives. They don't represent 'ordinary'
> developers like myself. Ordinary developers like myself prefer few but
> well thought out standards. We don't have time to engage with the W3C. But
> we do enjoy the fruits of well implemented specifications in browsers.
> I implore the W3C staff to think hard about whether a few loud mouthed
> developers really represent those of us who daily earn our bread on the
> web and don't really have time to seriously engage in standards work. I
> recommend you minimise standards development!
> #I don't understand what minimising standards development means and how it
> helps.
> * Developers and designers who work with technologies don't really know
> how to offer feedback. The mailing lists put some people off as they see
> the very technical discussion and believe that they can't contribute on
> that level. Yet they may have valuable feedback in terms of use cases in
> production.
> It would be great to have a way for individuals who would have much to
> offer to be involved and feel a part of what is happening at the W3C.
> Therefore I think the most important benefits would be those that helped
> individuals to feel a part of what is happening and to understand how
> things work at the W3C and with specs in order that they can bring their
> feedback and use cases to the table.
> * I don't see the need for a fee, t-shirts, mugs or anything that makes
> this feel like a 'club'.
> I think there is a need for more developers to hear about what decisions
> are being made/need to be made by the W3C and that there should be a
> clearer opportunity/method for them to have an input.
> Obviously there is some onus on the developer community to actively engage
> in this, but last week I heard about the 'parent selector survey' which
> had something like 130 responses. I was surprised that there were so few
> responses as every developer that I've spoken to since has said that they
> would have taken the time to give their opinion if they had only heard
> about the survey.
> The input of Webizens should not prevent others from being able to have an
> input (or be treated as more important), but instead the Webizen program
> should be a way for interested developers to find out more, and to
> discover the important issues quickly.
> * I think it would need to have a much clearer sell for potential members,
> although I appreciate it is early days. A couple of ideas that might be
> desirable are discussion forums and newsletters.
> * Important to have a program that allow "ordinary" people to engage.
> Member representation and Invited Expert paths along with participation
> requirements make W3C very mysterious to those who don't / can't follow
> those channels.
> Is the $100 fee annual or one-time?
> Especially for annual fee that high, real tangible benefits are critical.
> Just getting an ID or email address or listing on a supporters page (where
> it would be buried by the hopefully thousands of other names) don't cut
> it. People willing to pay this fee want real engagement. Tchotchkes like
> branded coffee mugs, pens, etc. are actually quite valuable in allowing
> people to show off their support and evangelize the brand for W3C.
> (T-shirts seem not useful for that because in many cultures and
> environments people wouldn't feel they can wear them.) An email address
> @supporters.w3.org, even if it's just a forwarder, would also be a useful
> perk from this perspective. Ability to join a Facebook (or comparable
> platform) group also useful.
> The other critical benefit is the opportunity for real engagement. People
> won't pay that fee just to get a mug or an email address - certainly not
> more than once. There must be opportunity for supporters to add a voice to
> the discussion. A channel to provide input (discussion list for
> supporters? IRC channel?) and adding to a spam list announcing spec review
> opportunities are starts. Periodic (at least once annual) active
> solicitation of input, e.g., from well-constructed WBS, from supporters is
> important. These people are likely to represent a different cross-section
> of interest groups than Members and need to have the opportunity to weigh
> in on priorities, key technical directions, etc.
> The program needs to have a clear cross-cultural and cross-language reach.
> It is an important way to start reaching into cultures and geographies
> where W3C is not currently strong. This means tchotchkes need to be
> meaningful in different cultures (why I oppose t-shirts, and have
> questions about coffee mugs, though a variety of tchotchkes reaching
> different cultures helps). There also needs to be active support for
> multi-lingual participation. That might simply be active encouragement of
> discussions in different languages on the supporters discussion list, or
> might mean setting up language-specific lists (pluses and minuses to each
> of those). For an expansive program like this, falling back to "W3C's
> official language is U.S. English" won't fly. Supporters themselves could
> be engaged in helping translate key inputs into one of the W3C's use
> languages (i.e., the languages at the Hosts).
> The concern to keep the supporters program completely free of stepping on
> Member benefits is misguided. For the supporters program to work, it has
> to offer real benefits, some of which are also Member benefits. In
> particular, the opportunity to weigh in *and have the input seriously
> considered* is critical. However, some Member benefits that should not
> come include WG participation and AC voting. I think reserving those to
> Members is enough that it's ok to leak a few other benefits to supporters.
> (There are likely to be a number of supporters who want to become Invited
> Experts - there should be a very clear story up front of how that happens
> and how often it is expected *not* to happen, or we'll be inundated by
> expectations and requests we can't meet.)
> * One way to engage a community of interested parties is to use surveys to
> gain input, opinion, priorities, etc... Don't expect low cost members at
> large to invest a lot of time (if they had time, they'd be a subject
> matter expert, etc...), such as to do thorough draft specification
> reviews, POC implementations, etc....
> * I think if we charge we have to provide benefits. But those benefits may
> be organization, e.g. more notification of public reviews, a place to
> discuss and provide feedback, i.e. nothing that we don't also offer the
> general public -- but with better infrastructure.
> * Great way to get involved at the grass roots level, much like the open
> source community.
> * I believe in the principle of the W3C, and would like to support the
> cause. But I am not a developer, and the vast majority of W3C activities
> go over my head. It is highly unlikely that I would ever be an active
> member. This proposed program looks like it might provide a way for people
> in my position to contribute, even if in a small way.
> * It is currently difficult to explain to people what the W3C actually is:
> a standardization organisation? an administration for the web?
> It should be the main benefit of your actions to gain more visibility in
> current discussions (e.g. net neutrality) and to be recognized as one of
> the main actors in the web near ICANN, major companies, EU policy etc — a
> participation of the users would definitely help on this way.
> * If you give more easily the possibility to decide/engage actively ,
> people will look closer, even if they don't decide/engage actively at all.
> * Has there been any thought on how to attract serious developers? Could
> leveraging a platform like stack overflow, which has a built in system for
> reputation work?
> * Having a caring dedicated cluster of groups can be a potential backbone
> to get the program going. ( instead of focusing on "one single team" of
> dedicated supporters.
> * It will be great if the program could organize classes aiming at
> increasing children interest in Web Programming.
> * I’d find it ridiculous if joining the webizen program would enable
> someone to do spec work (the t-shirt design competition). I think the
> program would be most effective if it enabled people to participate
> directly in working groups.
> * 1. I'd reduce the charges (and/or or introduce concessionary rates for
> students, unemployed, etc.) in order to make sure participation is made as
> accessible as possible. You could vary fees in proportion to national GDP
> per capita, or median income, or some comparable metric that would make
> your fee structure more subtle than just a developed-developing country
> dichotomy.
> 2. I'd make tangible "fun" rewards like T-shirts into optional purchases,
> maybe at a discount. This would reduce costs, and not everyone really
> wants a T-shirt or mug, though they're good to offer!
> 3. The design competition is great as a secondary means of promoting
> engagement.
> 4. I like the idea of participation points! Don't lose sight of the fact
> that (I assume) the program's main purpose is to promote formal input and
> engagement in W3C's processes; in this light, fees could be seen as a
> disincentive and T-shirts a distraction.
> 5. Good luck :-)
> * We are considering a Mozilla developer program too. Would be great to
> chat about collaboration.
> * W3C should try and be more visible at general developer events.
> * Don't over-complicate this... for most of us (web developers) there are
> niche parts that we are most interested in, and the key to success IMO is
> to provide the shortest path possible from "I would like to help but have
> no idea how" to "I am totally interested in [topic] and now I know how to
> help." Where [topic] for me might be ioc, modularization, ajax, cors, and
> web components. Often translating these concepts to the appropriate specs
> can be hard so I would like to see some sort of questionnaire that asks
> questions in the context of the current web and translated that to topics
> in discussion of the future web...
> * Good to include more voices in the W3C. I don't think you need to do
> much more than encourage people to speak up.
> * It's about time that something like the Webizen movement is showing up.
> I think that W3C has been primarily driven by the vendors for way too
> long.  Some sort of representation from the masses is needed with web
> standards.
> * #9 needs a "maybe" answer -- because the value of the 'developer' groups
> all depends on how they get woven into the Process.     wrt "without
> taking away from the value of Membership" -- the W3C needs IMHO to think
> seriously about becoming an all-comers volunteer-run org like the IETF.
> any membership cost will be a large impediment (financially and/or
> ideology-wise) to 'the long tail of developers' out there.     I don't
> know whether I'd personally join.    just worming one's way into the
> WhatWG might be a better way to go....
> * I believe that the W3C provides a great deal of direction and guidance
> to the critical specs; unfortunately, I don't feel that I have a say or a
> method to participate. This would be a great program
> * I want to participate actively, also it's worth to look for Mozilla's
> experience with community, 'cause they do it quite well.
> Coralie
> --
>   Coralie Mercier  -  W3C Communications Team  -  http://www.w3.org
> mailto:coralie@w3.org +336 4322 0001 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/

+31(0)6 14576494

*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

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> |

*Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!*

*e-Humanities Group (KNAW)*
[image: eHumanities] <http://www.ehumanities.nl/>
Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 08:27:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:06:11 UTC