W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Webplatform Facebook Group

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:24:05 -0400
Message-ID: <55307CD5.3050808@w3.org>
To: Russell <sgtpooki@gmail.com>, abhimanyu0003 <abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org>, public-webplatform@w3.org
Hi, Russell–

I tend agree with you that G+ might be a better place to get 
high-quality contributions, but I'm open to anything that helps build an 
maintain the contributor community.

I like what you're saying about marketing and publicity. Are you 
interested in helping brainstorm and drive that?

Regards–
–Doug

On 4/16/15 10:41 PM, Russell wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've been eavesdropping for a while and finally thought I would throw in
> my two cents on this. Probably more like two hundred cents..
>
> I think the group needs a lot more exposure, but I am worried that a
> Facebook group could bring in a lot of bad submissions. Is there an easy
> way to manage non-serious submissions? I have seen much more of a
> programmer / IT community on G+, so I would throw in my vote for that
> before Facebook, but we still have the potential for the same problem.
> Twitter could be even better, but there is already a web platform
> account, it just doesn't seem to be doing much evangelism.
>
> Either way, we definitely need a core group of individuals dedicated to
> marketing and publicity if this project is going to take off like it
> needs to. I remember hearing about the webplatform when it first started
> up and remember the excitement within myself and my fellow developers,
> but I don't think anyone really remembers anything about it until they
> randomly stumble upon it again. All the devs I know use MDN, Dash,
> devdocs.io <http://devdocs.io>, or whatwg. I find myself using those
> more often too, as webplatform doesn't seem to have the "umph" needed to
> take over.
>
> Part of this is because webplatform rarely shows on Google results.
> Webplatform.org does not rank anywhere close to MDN and we are not
> showing for the most common of css/html/javascript searches. We need to
> hit Google's front-page, and thinking about it more now, I think that is
> most important. Let's make all the groups.
>
> Have we worked on SEO at all? Is anyone pointing to webplatform.org
> <http://webplatform.org>'s site when answering stackoverflow questions?
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:13 PM Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org
> <mailto:schepers@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi, Abhimanyu–
>
>     Okay, let's explore this idea again. I admit to being skeptical, but if
>     you think it will help get more contributors, and to keep contributors
>     active, then I'm open to at least testing it.
>
>     What do you suggest for next steps?
>
>     Regards–
>     –Doug
>
>     On 4/12/15 3:26 AM, abhimanyu0003 wrote:
>      > I recommended months ago of having a solid third-party, somewhat
>      > clutter-ish and compromised portal: an open Facebook group.
>      >
>      > I love the WPD and it'll one of the best technical projects in the
>      > future, but my other priorities are so easy to get my hands into,
>     while
>      > contributing and discussing WPD work is non-modern.
>      >
>      > An open Facebook group will mean our attention being diverted to WPD
>      > more frequently and have much more members (an open group is seen by
>      > friends ofall members, thus increasing our visibility and getting
>     more
>      > enthusiastic contributors).
>      >
>      > ---
>      > &#60;/Abhimanyu&#62;
>      >
>      >
>      > ---- On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 04:19:12 +0530 *aaa@bzfx.net
>     <mailto:aaa@bzfx.net>* wrote ----
>      >
>      >     Have we reached out to see how we can be more accommodating?i
>      >
>      >     I'd much prefer not using a vendor-specific, or even
>      >     vendor-controlled, source.
>      >
>      >     Austin.
>      >
>      >     On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 1:46 AM, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com
>     <mailto:phistuck@gmail.com>
>      >     <mailto:phistuck@gmail.com <mailto:phistuck@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >         While it is not dead, some vendors (or a single vendor?) are
>      >         instructing their members to prefer
>      >
>       <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/RNk93vpOaV8/2_hw97dJ0NQJ>
>      >         other
>      >
>       <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/RNk93vpOaV8/fhNVU0s8DCQJ>
>      >         documentation venues.
>      >         To me, this is really sad.
>      >
>      >         Perhaps you can do something about it?
>      >
>      >
>      >         ☆*PhistucK*
>      >
>      >
>      >         On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Jonathan Garbee
>      >         <jonathan@garbee.me <mailto:jonathan@garbee.me>
>     <mailto:jonathan@garbee.me <mailto:jonathan@garbee.me>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >             These kinds of projects also don't just get a jump start
>      >             then take off and keep going. Initial interest
>     happens, all
>      >             the people who are just interested head out, then you are
>      >             left with a far smaller group of core contributors. Then
>      >             over time that core group even changes as life
>     happens and
>      >             new shiny things come along. (Try to recall the often
>      >             provided bell-curve of tech adoption, then make the curve
>      >             narrower and far more dramatic. Then toss a few more
>     curves
>      >             in over time.)
>      >
>      >             Documentation projects in particular have one major flaw,
>      >             people don't feel it is worth their time to
>     contribute. They
>      >             are paid to do write code that functions and move on
>     to the
>      >             next thing. So taking time out to contribute to a
>     document
>      >             is hardly on their mind. WPD is in a very slow-pace
>     area and
>      >             we want contributors that really care about the
>     quality of
>      >             their work. That quality comes at the cost of things
>     moving
>      >             even slower.
>      >
>      >             Things aren't dead, they are just stagnant. As WPD offers
>      >             wider community engagement then hopefully we can
>     collect a
>      >             few more core contributors that will make things not
>     seem so
>      >             slow. I'd much rather have a handful of core contributors
>      >             that do true quality work then an army of low-quality
>      >             contributions that makes things seem more active. The
>      >             content provided is far more useful in the end that way.
>      >
>      >             On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Doug Schepers
>      >             <schepers@w3.org <mailto:schepers@w3.org>
>     <mailto:schepers@w3.org <mailto:schepers@w3.org>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >                 Yes, Austin has been a really prolific contributor
>      >                 (thanks!), and we also have Nishanth Babu adding
>      >                 beginner DOM tutorials, among many other contributors
>      >                 and content.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >                 We've actually concentrated quite a lot on
>      >                 infrastructure over the last few months; Renoir
>     has done
>      >                 a great job.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >                 We're even adding over some new functionality, like
>      > specs.webplatform.org <http://specs.webplatform.org>
>     <http://specs.webplatform.org>
>      >                 that hosts more experimental specifications, and
>     adding
>      >                 a technical discussion area where developers and
>      >                 designers can ask questions about spec
>     development. Our
>      >                 emphasis is on closing the gap between standards
>      >                 development and developers.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >                 Regards–
>      >
>      >                 –Doug
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >                 On 4/10/15 6:31 PM, Austin William Wright wrote:
>      >
>      >
>      >                     Slow maybe, not dead. Over the last month I've
>      >                     touched almost all the
>      >
>      >                     HTML element pages, merging duplicates, adding
>      >                     examples, correcting
>      >
>      >                     normative references, and importing data.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >                     I also noticed a great TLS/HTTPS upgrade, and
>      >                     MediaWiki upgrade, iirc.
>      >
>      >                     So even the server is getting love, it's not
>     just me.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >                     Austin Wright.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >                     On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Ric Johnson
>      >                     <ric@opendomain.org
>     <mailto:ric@opendomain.org> <mailto:ric@opendomain.org
>     <mailto:ric@opendomain.org>>
>      >
>      >                     <mailto:ric@opendomain.org
>     <mailto:ric@opendomain.org>
>      >                     <mailto:ric@opendomain.org
>     <mailto:ric@opendomain.org>>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >                          Is the WebPlatform project dead?  I have not
>      >                     seen any progress in
>      >
>      >                          quite a while.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >                          I thought this was an amazing chance to help
>      >                     new developers learn
>      >
>      >                          web technologies, but it seems that we have
>      >                     dropped the ball.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >                          Is there anyone interested in kicking this
>      >                     project back on gear?
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >                          Ric Johnson
>      >
>      >                          OpenDomain
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>
Received on Friday, 17 April 2015 03:24:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 17 April 2015 03:24:10 UTC