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

RE: Webplatform Facebook Group

From: Ann-Katrin Travelling <aktravelling@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:19:08 +0200
Message-ID: <DUB127-W60AC88BEE445434DD0F2BFD1E20@phx.gbl>
To: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
CC: abhimanyu0003 <abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Yes, the sticky thread I agree on, that would be the absolute minimum. But I still say we need to check this very carefully before we go ahead with a BOT. I have spent a lot of time on privacy and privacy issues, based in Europe, working with US for an American company. It's even tricky what you can and can't do within an organisation, and with this we are reaching far outside. 
Plus, there isn't ONE set of rules that fits the whole of Europe, each country have different rules, even if there is some sort of minimum requirement at least within EU. 
I am not saying that it necessarly IS an issue, or that there aren't workarounds, I am just saying it needs to be considered. 
There aren't just the issue with privacy and where personal data is stored, what may be just as important is what it does for user confidence and if it is good from a marketing perspective. What does the community actually want and what are they comfortable with. I'd say regardless of other issues, we should really make sure we have buy-in from the larger community. Lets first set up the communities (or reactivate the existing ones) and then, when we see how much discussions it actually creates and what people are posting about, contemplate a bot. 
It's silly to waste time on boiling soup if the people want salad... 
From: phistuck@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:51:32 +0300
To: aktravelling@hotmail.com
CC: abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org; public-webplatform@w3.org; schepers@w3.org
Subject: Re: Webplatform Facebook Group

The point of such a bot is to make sure you can go to any place and still have all of the discussions.As long as there is a sticky thread that tells you that anything you post is copied to Facebook, Google+ and the mailing list, I do not see any problem with it.But I am not a lawyer, obviously.
Maintaining several disjoint places does not scale.
¡¸PhistucK

On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Ann-Katrin Travelling <aktravelling@hotmail.com> wrote:



And then followed by this:


If you get the user ID from Facebook and you have the email from the mailing list it's not rocket science to pair them together. But as long as we don't transfer "who said what" between platforms it's less of an issue. As long as people don't start tagging each other in a Facebook post. Remember European rules and US rules are different when it comes to privacy. Just saying that before a bot is launched, some caution is needed. But I can't say much more until I really see what you plan to do with it. And as far as I understand this is just on a planning stage so far? Just saying we need to get all the challenges and opportunities out there. Nothing stopping us from setting up both a G+ and FB page and let people choose themselves, that could be done without too much thought - but any bots or automatic transfer of data I'd be very careful with. Until we understand the full picture at least. -Please excuse potential spelling mistakes, small keyboard, sent from my phone.--- Original Message ---From: "PhistucK" <phistuck@gmail.com>Sent: 17 April 2015 6:50 pmTo: "Ann-Katrin Travelling" <aktravelling@hotmail.com>Subject: Re: Re: Webplatform Facebook GroupI am not sure about any privacy issues. You do not map e-mail addresses to Facebook users. In my 'vision', it will be a single Facebook user for the bot that simply unifies everything.Also, if you do not want to get posts already posted to Facebook in the mailing list, almost any e-mail client today has a rule feature that can filter those. I am pretty sure that interested parties use such a client and the messages can easily be marked as "imported from Facebook".

From: aktravelling@hotmail.com
To: phistuck@gmail.com; abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org; public-webplatform@w3.org
CC: schepers@w3.org
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 12:34:33 +0200
Subject: RE: Webplatform Facebook Group




I tried to respond to this but apparently unsuccessfully to all, it just whent to one person and not to the mailing list. So another try...:
That needs to be very clear though, if you post on a mailing list you may not be too happy to see that your posts are also published on FB. The posts had to be stripped of the ID, we don't even know if people use the same mail for FB and Google Plus as they do here. And I'll leave the mailing list if I'm spammed with FB posts, there are notifications for that if I want to get info outside of Facebook. Bots for mass mails is a tricky business. Not the least from a privacy point of view.Ann-Katrin:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::



From: phistuck@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:27:35 +0300
To: abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org
CC: schepers@w3.org; sgtpooki@gmail.com; public-webplatform@w3.org
Subject: Re: Re: Webplatform Facebook Group

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> 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> wrote ---- 
Hi, Russell¡V 
 
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¡V 
¡VDoug 
 
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¡V 
> 
>     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¡V 
>     ¡VDoug 
> 
>     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¡V 
>      > 
>      >                 ¡VDoug 
>      > 
>      > 
>      > 
>      >                 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 Saturday, 18 April 2015 11:19:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 18 April 2015 11:19:37 UTC