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

Re: [minutes] 2014-09-05 Webizen task force meeting

From: Tim Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 14:51:09 +1000
Cc: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>, Veronica Thom <veronica@w3.org>
Message-Id: <31C32A4E-6A64-44FB-B5EF-53BDC9394656@gmail.com>
To: "public-webizen@w3.org" <public-webizen@w3.org>

On 6 Sep 2014, at 5:00 am, Veronica Thom <veronica@w3.org> wrote:

> On 9/5/2014 2:59 PM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>> Is the audio recorded?
>> 
>> Some of the short-hand doesn't seem to capture the convo (note to self; help scribe...)
> sorry, I'm not very good with scribing!
> 
that’s ok - thank you for your efforts!! (i’m not so confident with it either, and so didn’t contribute to the scribe very much at all :( …)

I’ve scribed a few notes inline (below) that i hope clarify my thoughts at the time.  

TimH>

> Veronica
>> 
>> Thankyou again all...
>> 
>> Timh,
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>>> On 6 Sep 2014, at 4:50 am, "Coralie Mercier" <coralie@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Today's teleconference minutes are at:
>>>  https://www.w3.org/2014/09/05-webizen-minutes.html
>>> 
>>> Text snapshot:
>>> --------------
>>>                   Webizen Task Force teleconference
>>>                           05 Sep 2014
>>> 
>>>   [2]Agenda
>>>      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webizen/2014Sep/0006.html
>>>   See also: [3]IRC log
>>>      [3] http://www.w3.org/2014/09/05-webizen-irc
>>> 
>>> Attendees
>>>   Present
>>>          Veronica Thom, Coralie Mercier (koalie), Tim Holborn
>>>          (mediaprophet), Jeff Jaffe, Michiel Leenaars, Brian
>>>          Kardell, Armin Haller, Olle Olsson, Virginie Galindo
>>>   Regrets
>>>          Ann Bassetti, Georg Rehm
>>>   Chair
>>>          Jeff Jaffe
>>>   Scribe
>>>          koalie, veronica
>>> 
>>>     __________________________________________________________
>>> 
>>>   <koaliie> [6]Previous (2014-08-20)
>>> 
>>>      [6] http://www.w3.org/2014/08/20-webizen-minutes.html
>>> 
>>>   <veronica> hi all
>>> 
>>>   <koalie> scribenick: koalie
>>> 
>>>   <mediaprophet> :)
>>> 
>>>   Jeff: We're into our 3rd or 4th call + had extensive
>>>   discussions on the mailing list
>>>   ... we had a task force in the spring, presented a proposal to
>>>   the Advisory Committee, they rejected it
>>>   ... our focus since reboot has been on a survey
>>>   ... We made good progress and today is the final review of the
>>>   questionnaire
>>>   ... intent is to send next Monday, 8-Sep
>>>   ... we'll tweet it to 93.4K W3C followers
>>>   ... we'll send it to the W3C advisory committee
>>>   ... we'll make public mentions of it so not only twitter users
>>>   can take it
>>>   ... survey will last 3 weeks
>>>   ... the week of the 29-Sep we'll have another TF teleconference
>>>   ... to review the results and finalise the structure of the
>>>   program
>>>   ... in order to present at the next AC meeting the week of
>>>   October 27
>>>   ... let's go to the survey
>>> 
>>>   <koaliie> [7]draft Webizen Program interest survey
>>> 
>>>      [7] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/webizen-survey/
>>> 
>>>   Jeff: go to the survey, please
>>>   ... we took mostly what was in the wiki
>>>   ... I prefer that people look at the instrument itself
>>>   ... so you see the actual survey rather than the outline in the
>>>   wiki
>>> 
>>>   Tim: How are you reflecting in the intro that W3C is changing
>>>   as the world evolves?
>>>   ... side and ideology, v-a-v HTML, also accelerating
>>>   participation (cf. actions with IGF)
>>> 

I was thinking about the TimBL Map, which stems into the field of ‘web science’[14]. Herein, from technology standards points of view, works such as ontologies are changing the patterns of utility the W3C (communities) engage - furthering from traditional Web Languages, to more sophisticated forms.  Within such considerations, are some thoughts around the discussion within NETmundial[15] and the IGF[16], surrounding access to the internet and how to support the majority of humanity (only a minority currently have web access); and therein,

questions in my mind around how W3C will continue to play a leadership role in maintaining WWW within its role, charter, etc.

Within this segment is of course, accessibility - which has jeff pointed out, includes accessibility standards, etc. Other areas include languages supported in learning materials and other resources that aid regions in accelerating adoption, localised use (i’m aussie, so s’s not z’s) and other forms of standards support that lower barriers to adoption.

[14] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/map/main.jpg
[15] http://new.livestream.com/wef/events/3320009
[16] https://www.youtube.com/user/igf/videos
>>>   Jeff: Our focus on industry is a way, Community Groups is
>>>   another; we're changing in so many ways, I didn't want to lose
>>>   my audience is a too long manifesto
>>>   ... if you have suggestions, after reading the prologue,
>>>   please, send them.
>>> 
>>>   Michiel: I'm reading this as though it were written for a 4th
>>>   grader
>>>   ... positioning is very abstract
>>>   ... it wouldn't appeal
>>> 
>>>   Jeff: Currently, what we're trying to do with that, if you look
>>>   at the bottom of the prologue, there is a link to the goals of
>>>   the program which are a bit more specific
>>>   ... to your point, I'm not an expert in either writing or
>>>   creating surveys
>>>   ... So I'd love to get more input from people
>>> 
>>>   [Virginie joins]
>>> 
>>>   Jeff: We could provide in the survey a link to a longer
>>>   description
>>> 
>>>   Michiel: Can we skip the questions if you don't reply yes?
>>> 
>>>   Jeff: No, unfortunately, that is a known limitation of the
>>>   instrument
>>> 
>>>   Tim: [question was about whether the introduction of the
>>>   program, provides a review function that allows it to be
>>>   reviewed, refined, and improved once the program has developed
>>>   (and obtains take-up, etc.)]
>>> 

Given the short timelines, and small levels of participation; it seems more than reasonable (quite sensible) to factor the introduction of the program as simply that - an introductory period.  Perhaps throughout an initial phase, ‘webizens’ can work together (once the engagement model has been forged) to look at the opportunities and challenges, and create a critical path / further define activities and characteristics of the webizen models.

>>>   Jeff: That's my intention, it's not overly explicit
>>>   ... In question 5, one of the answers, the 2nd, that's a
>>>   somewhat weak example which reflects what you're requesting
>>> 
>>>   Jeff: I don't know if there is a place where we should make
>>>   this stronger in the wiki or survey
>>>   ... to show we're on the same page
>>> 
>>>   <michiell> I think all the yes/no questions can go away
>>> 
>>>   <michiell> For instance question 8 could be deleted if question
>>>   9 has a option 'no tangible benefits' at the end
>>> 
>>>   <michiell> That would reduce the amount of questions
>>> 
>>>   Tim: how many languages is this survey being offered in?
>>> 
Offering the survey in a multi-lingual format may aid assessments of whether the W3C has sufficient demand as to consider supporting engagement in languages other than english. The implementation would need to be assessed, yet the data in terms of whether or not sufficient demand exists - is perhaps a good starting point to providing the necessary stats, on being able to make an educated decision about this sphere of characteristics for any would-be webizen program.

>>>   Coralie: English; I could provide French translation
>>> 
>>>   Coralie: but then, why not other languages? how long would that
>>>   delay opening the survey?
>>> 
>>>   Tim: It's worth thinking about it
>>> 
>>>   Jeff: Great idea
>>>   ... Coralie how long would it take?
>>> 
>>>   Coralie: Probably a day or so
>>> 
>>>   Jeff: I'm happy to delay this a day or two to give the option
>>>   for people to fill out the survey in their own language
>>>   ... we could translate in 20 languages or so
>>> 
>>>   <virginie> could help Koalie reading french translation, once
>>>   done
>>> 
NOTE: other languages were discussed. 
>>>   Coralie: note: English is the work language of the W3C
>>> 
>>>   Tim: there is a demand, still
>>> 
>>>   <mediaprophet> +1
>>> 
>>>   <scribe> ACTION: Coralie to get survey, once final, translated
>>>   in W3C Offices languages [recorded in
>>>   [8]http://www.w3.org/2014/09/05-webizen-minutes.html#action01]
>>> 
>>>   Jeff: there is nothing technical in the survey and foreign
>>>   people are more used to technical English
>>>   ... A non-technical survey might benefit from being
>>>   multi-lingual
>>> 
>>>   <mediaprophet> +1
>>> 
>>>   Jeff: it also signals to the world that we're taking extra
>>>   steps to be inclusive
>>>   ... a couple-day delay is fine
>>> 
>>>   Virginie: I wanted to check when the finalization of the survey
>>>   takes place, when is it frozen?
>>> 
>>>   Jeff: We plan to complete and freeze the survey in today's
>>>   meeting
>>>   ... and run survey from sep 8-29
>>> 
>>>   Jeff: with translations, this slips a bit.
>>> 
>>>   <scribe> scribenick: veronica
>>> 
>>>   armin: I have a question about #7
>>>   ... unique member id #, maybe extend with uri or url
>>>   ... could be more clear for people
>>> 
>>>   <ahaller2> Armin: Listing your profile on the W3C website and
>>>   Name listed on our Supporters page (with # years) seem to be
>>>   similar for people. Maybe we can combine them to one answer.
>>> 
>>>   jeff: q7 are radio buttons
>>>   ... and you will be able to type multiple
>>>   ... there is a bug with q7
>>> 
>>>   jeff: should allow multiple selection
>>> 
>>>   koalie: I'll fix this
>>> 
>>>   jeff: and q9
>>>   ... this is a fantastic beta team!
>>> 
>>>   tim: with 9, maybe keep it simple, way to provide suggestions
>>> 
Checkboxes
>>>   jeff: we thought about that
>>>   ... problem is unless we get hundreds of people answering the
>>>   survey, we won't have critical mass
>>> 
>>>   <ahaller2> +1 for other suggestions
>>> 
>>>   tim: how about using some kind of tags?
>>> 
>>>   jeff: yes, that's a technological solution
>>>   ... if I'm the first one and everyone sees my ideas, but if I'm
>>>   the last one, no one sees my ideas
>>>   ... at the moment I'm just trying to get this off the ground
>>> 
>>>   tim: accepted
>>> 
The idea was to use structured data; for example a form of tag-cloud, or linked-data resource that would aid with analytics.  The suggestion is that the results not be known until the end of the survey (as not to prompt new contributors towards any particular lens) but that rather than using freeform text (which may be expensive / time-consuming to review) that using structured data, would enable a graph to be generated quickly, with respect to the results of the survey - enabling people to provide additional info, otherwise not covered by the survey questions itself.  (NB; Perhaps Andrei (or kingsley) has some ideas about how this might work)

>>>   jeff: so far lots of great comments
>>> 
>>>   brianK: there was a proposal, not the best but not bad
>>>   ... general consensus
>>>   ... not very clear, wishy washy
>>>   ... so that's where we are right now?
>>> 
>>>   jeff: which proposal?
>>> 
>>>   <michiell> I've just sent an alternative introduction to the
>>>   mailing list.
>>> 
>>>   <michiell> I think the 100 dollar should be part of the
>>>   questionnaire
>>> 
>>>   brian: basically an electoral proposal, $100 annual fee
>>> 
>>>   jeff: that proposal - wanting more, less - was rejected by AC
>>> 
>>>   briank: that's what I meant
>>>   ... now soul searching what this should be
>>>   ... sent some comments in email
>>>   ... wondering are we definitely saying this has to be a
>>>   membership program that requires a fee?
>>> 
>>>   jeff: this goes back to our first [rebooted] task force meeting
>>> 
>>>   <jeff> [9]https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen#Success_criteria
>>> 
>>>      [9] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen#Success_criteria
>>> 
>>>   jeff: at beginning of our task force mtg, we populated the wiki
>>>   ... one of success criteria was don't lose money
>>> 
>>>   <michiell> For me 'don't loose money' is not the main criterium
>>> 
>>>   jeff: nice that you're doing this, but u could end up with
>>>   program with lots of people requiring some support
>>>   ... could be it $50, $100; that's also reason for survey
>>>   ... just a starting point
>>>   ... so that's where we're at now
>>>   ... doesn't have to be W3C creating grassroots as [brian]
>>>   mentioned in his posts
>>> 
>>>   tim: q9, whether someone in affluent country supporting the
>>>   cost
>>>   ... developing countries lower cost?
>>> 
>>>   jeff: in prologue, we recognize there could be need for dif
>>>   levels of fees
>>> 
>>>   tim: other question about students
>>>   ... some can afford the fee; and the internet society?
>>> 
>>>   [Coralie leaves for another meeting]
>>> 
>>>   jeff: this is already a heavy weight survey
>>>   ... don't want to complicate it more
>>> 
>>>   brian: wish we had a more passive way to collect this
>>>   information
>>> 
>>>   brian: barrier to entry to participate in the survey
>>> 
>>>   michiel: i sent alternative introduction in email
>>> 
>>>   <ahaller2> +1 for open end question!
>>> 
>>>   michiel: we can ask some people if $100 is ok, but it's a
>>>   random statement
>>>   ... someone mentioned internet society
>>>   ... to have everyone pay may not be necessary
>>>   ... if u price the wrong way, nobody will join
>>> 
>>>   jeff: question is how do we determine what is the median of
>>>   what people would pay
>>>   ... buyer wants to spend as little as possible
>>> 
>>>   michiel: if they want to support the open web, what are you
>>>   willing to donate to be involved
>>>   ... people donate $ because they care and want to see things
>>>   happen
>>> 
>>>   jeff: we currently have the supporters program but no one is
>>>   contributing
>>>   ... so I agree token is probably wrong word
>>>   ... nor accessible
>>>   ... what is the right word?
>>> 
>>>   tim: sustainable?
>>> 
>>>   brian: realistic?
>>> 
>>>   jeff: how about basic fee?
>>> 
>>>   <ahaller2> Armin: what about leaving the word out completely
>>> 
>>>   jeff: let's go with 'basic' fee vs token
>>> 
>>>   <ahaller2> ... just fee
>>> 
>>>   tim: if asking what they'll pay, need to know where they're
>>>   from, and their local currency
>>> 
>>>   jeff: could people type here what they'd be willing to pay for
>>>   this?
>>> 
>>>   <michiell> 45 euro
>>> 
>>>   <mediaprophet> $150 AUD
>>> 
>>>   <mediaprophet> ~
>>> 
>>>   <ahaller2> $120
>>> 
>>>   <jeff> $1000
>>> 
>>>   <virginie> 50 euros
>>> 
>>>   <olleo> 50 euros
>>> 
>>>   <bkardell_> Unanswerable, depends what it is :-)
>>> 
>>>   <mediaprophet> if i was really poor - ~75 - but it’s less than
>>>   the cost of a certificate...
>>> 
>>>   5,000,000 jpy
>>> 
>>>   jeff: okay, interesting
>>> 
>>>   tim: still important is culture
>>>   ... not as commercial as other fields?
>>>   ... engagement protocol sets foundation for how this happens
>>> 

W3C activities (in my experience) are not as commercial as other fields. Indeed many, in the CG’s are spending their time at their own cost - getting involved because they feel strongly about something (and likely wish to contribute using the W3C IPR model, and related resources).  The way in which this survey goes to market, will provide a philosophical engagement model - why should people get involved, what would they be ’donating’ towards (perhaps donating not the best term - yet, there is a difference between supporting a forum of technology evolution with a commercial organisation, vs. the way in which a person contributes and what they contribute towards, with/via W3C).

(ALSO: that given the scaling mandates or those sought by the world, the ability for people to engage and aid in fostering the growth of W3C is useful for all parties…)
  
>>>   jeff: good point
>>>   ... after the AC rejected the June proposal, I was skeptical
>>>   ... how to make this to not lose money, make it acceptable to
>>>   AC
>>>   ... culture is important
>>>   ... winning proposal could be what's in brian's blog post
>>>   ... for now, let's go ahead with the survey
>>> 
>>>   <michiell> We can ask the question about money and let them
>>>   answer in local currency
>>> 
>>>   <mediaprophet> is this the proposal discussed?
>>>   [10]https://medium.com/@briankardell/web-standards-we-want-part
>>>   -i-chapters-ca71985bf914
>>> 
>>>     [10] https://medium.com/@briankardell/web-standards-we-want-part-i-chapters-ca71985bf914
>>> 
>>>   jeff: if this one dies then we may try a third time
>>> 
>>>   tim: I think this it incredibly important work and I support
>>>   this
>>> 

IMHO - the webizen program provides a conduit for growth of W3C standards development related works. I believe it is a foundation, for an array of benefits for all would-be participants which may only be fostered should the program become established, provided the opportunity to grow, etc.

>>>   brian: I would like to make an observation
>>>   ... perhaps a radical sugestion
>>>   ... while there are lots of interesting points, whatever level
>>>   of pricing
>>>   ... we don't know what this will look like
>>>   ... I feel like that's one of the things AC will reject
>>>   ... long survey might not get us the information
>>>   ... what about couple of concrete proposals and then survey
>>>   which one on thos proposals do you like
>>> 
>>>   <michiell> Two or three scenario's - which one is the webizen
>>>   you want
>>> 
>>>   brian: too much choice is overwhelming
>>>   ... if you tell people $100, might complain but they pay and
>>>   they'll be happy
>>> 
>>>   <virginie> I feel this idea to offer 3 nice stories is a good
>>>   suggestion
>>> 
>>>   brian: can we narrow it down more?
>>> 
>>>   jeff: so Brian, this may surprise you
>>>   ... I believe I've done this
>>>   ... look at q3, I anticipate most would select 'it would
>>>   depend'
>>> 
>>>   <virginie> I think that what bk is expecting is complete
>>>   package description
>>> 
>>>   jeff: when we correlate the information, it will give us the
>>>   options
>>> 
>>>   brian: logging into survey, there's many more questions
>>> 
>>>   armin: comment on payment
>>>   ... for the cost, stress that even if the program is free it
>>>   will make participation stronger
>>>   ... if people are joining as indiv in free program, get more
>>>   ... agree with brian's freeform survey
>>>   ... get comments, ability to express opinions
>>> 
>>>   jeff: agree, we should add question at end for their own
>>>   perspective on this program
>>>   ... ideas you may have
>>> 
>>>   virginie: wanted to highlight brian's suggestion
>>>   ... could be complementary to survey
>>>   ... could be additional question
>>>   ... which one of 3 options would you prefer
>>>   ... could be redundant but could be interesting
>>>   ... maybe classifying 3 scenarios
>>>   ... e.g.25 equival dollars, u get ...
>>> 
>>>   <michiell> And you can actually implement more than one in the
>>>   end
>>> 
>>>   virginie: happy to work on some words for these scenarios
>>> 
>>>   jeff: sure, but I don't know if we'll get consensus of the
>>>   right scenarios quickly
>>> 
>>>   tim: who cares about the merchandising?
>>> 
The cost of manufacturing and posting merchandising (i.e.: t-shirts, coffee cups, etc.) fundamentally eats into the fees paid, to become a member.  This is less of a problem for developed nations with comparable economics to that of the USA, much more of a problem when considering how individuals may be able to leverage their webizen affiliation / membership / program participation - in other regions for the benefit of their communities, in WWW support.  Merchandising is an important facet [17] but perhaps not the driving force that will aid in the success of this program.

[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webizen/2014Sep/0015.html  

>>>   <michiell> I don't think there is a W3C shop?
>>> 
>>>   tim: are people going to join just to be part of W3C versus
>>>   joining for merchandise
>>>   ... social media, at the moment, there are 125 followers
>>>   ... gauge how many people are attaching to the concept?
>>>   ... 120 followers on twitter tag
>>> 
>>>   jeff: I don't know what people are going to be interested in
>>>   ... I'd rather ask them rather than assume
>>> 
>>>   tim: who's working on promotion on twitter?
>>> 
Social media is an engagement model for people, that may support better identifying marketplace support for a webizen program - as distinct from the number of individuals who successfully complete the survey.  It appeared to me, that the survey was the primary resource being used to identify whether or not sufficient numbers of individuals were interested in this program; which in-turn entirely depends upon the barriers of completing the survey, by any would-be participant. 

It might be found that a bunch of people will ‘like’ a page (cause it takes a few seconds) but would rather wait till the program is in existence, rather than spend time filling out a survey.  that said - i hope the response for the survey is enormous!! 
>>>   jeff: Coralie is handling this. contact her.
>>> 
>>>   michiel: i think merchandise important; why not separate this
>>>   ... a merchandise shop
>>> 
>>>   jeff: might be possible
>>> 
>>>   michiell: some people want to be involved, some just want
>>>   merchandise
>>> 
>>>   jeff: thanks everyone for input. some changes may be small but
>>>   are important
>>>   ... translating is huge idea and will take a little time
>>>   ... I'll schedule call week of 29 Sep
>>>   ... by then we'll see results
>>>   ... based on partic and results, we'll see if we have a program
>>>   of if we're back to square 1
>>>   ... please tell everyone to answer the survey!
>>> 
>>>   <virginie> thanks !
>>> 
>>>   jeff: thanks everyone for your participation today!
>>> 
>>>   <ahaller2> bye
>>> 
>>> Summary of Action Items
>>> 
>>>   [NEW] ACTION: Coralie to get survey, once final, translated in
>>>   W3C Offices languages [recorded in
>>>   [11]http://www.w3.org/2014/09/05-webizen-minutes.html#action01]
>>> 
>>>   [End of minutes]
>>>     __________________________________________________________
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [12]scribe.perl version
>>>    1.138 ([13]CVS log)
>>>    $Date: 2014-09-05 18:46:35 $
>>> 
>>>     [12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>>>     [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Coralie Mercier  -  W3C Communications Team  -  http://www.w3.org
>>> mailto:coralie@w3.org +336 4322 0001 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/
>>> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 6 September 2014 04:56:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 3 November 2015 13:35:29 UTC