- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:46:42 -0400
- To: abhimanyu0003 <abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org>
- CC: Russell <sgtpooki@gmail.com>, public-webplatform@w3.org
Thanks, Abhimanyu. I've added you as an admin. On 4/17/15 9:35 PM, abhimanyu0003 wrote: > I am willing to contribute in the publication of the group. I also > support having an additional community on Google+. > > Btw, I've sent a request to join the WebPlatform.org group -- please > accept the request and make me an admin too so that I can kickstart > creating docs in the group. > > (I'll soon delete the group I made. I've told the members to migrate. > There are 12 people in that group in total) > > --- > </Abhimanyu> > > > ---- On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 01:43:02 +0530 *Doug Schepers > <schepers@w3.org>* wrote ---- > > Hi, Abhimanyu– > > Thanks for taking the initiative to create that Facebook group. > > Actually, we already created a Facebook group as an experiment, back > when you first suggested it. We'd prefer to use that site; we've taken > the liberty of adding you as an admin. > > https://www.facebook.com/groups/WebPlatform.org/ > > Let's continue this discussion about how to best use this resource, and > other social media resources. > > Regards– > –Doug > > > On 4/16/15 11:56 PM, abhimanyu0003 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>, 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> > > <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). > > > > > > > > --- > > > > </Abhimanyu> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- 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>>> 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>>> 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>>> 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> > > > > <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 Saturday, 18 April 2015 02:47:00 UTC