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

Re: Webplatform Facebook Group

From: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:39:11 +0300
Message-ID: <CABc02_Lz4uxhp=ChyqgY5vz=UmNy_tbqhLNAZO23HHFpjtAz2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: abhimanyu0003 <abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org>, Russell <sgtpooki@gmail.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
I am not familiar with their APIs, sorry (and I do not volunteer to
implement such a bot, either). I imagine so, though.
If we end up implementing this kind of bot, then I guess any objection is
moot because everyone can just keep posting to the venue most comfortable
for them without losing any information.


☆*PhistucK*

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> Sounds like a good idea. Could we do that for both Facebook and G+?
>
> On 4/17/15 9:27 AM, PhistucK wrote:
>
>> Should there be a bot that collects the posts and comments and publishes
>> them on a mailing list (and maybe also the other way around)?
>>
>>
>> ☆*PhistucK*
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 6:56 AM, abhimanyu0003
>> <abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org <mailto:abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     __
>>     Thanks for accepting this proposal. G+ is not better than Facebook,
>>     they're both the same (with Facebook's membership times more than
>>     G+'). There are many technical groups on Facebook too, you probably
>>     have just not looked. Their differences don't matter, they're both
>>     the same.
>>
>>     I also agree that we need proper marketing and publicising but
>>     first, we'll need to make the group active and add as many members
>>     from WPD as we can. Here's the URL, so if you have a Facebook
>>     account, just visit it.
>>
>>     https://www.facebook.com/groups/WebPlatformOfficial/
>>
>>     I could publicise it in appropriate places, but I'm not sure that
>>     will be very helpful when we've just begun. First we have to
>>     establish some authority, so that when people look, they know that
>>     we mean serious content. A new group won't give that impression, so
>>     let's stay away from publicising right now (however, we can use
>>     technical forums to target aspiring members saying that we're new
>>     and need members, that'll be a totally different thing).
>>
>>     ---
>>     </Abhimanyu>
>>
>>
>>     ---- On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:54:05 +0530 *Doug Schepers
>>     <schepers@w3.org <mailto:schepers@w3.org>>* wrote ----
>>
>>
>>         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> <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>
>>          > <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>
>>          > <mailto: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>
>>          > <mailto: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>>
>>          > > <mailto: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>>
>>          > <mailto: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>>
>>          > <mailto: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>
>>          > <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>>>
>>          > >
>>          > > <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 <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 14:40:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 17 April 2015 14:40:21 UTC