Re: MW4D Roadmap Document-- comments

Hello Stephane,

There are certainly many ways in which this write-up can be done be. I
suppose, it is largely a matter of personal preference and I was looking to
share my point of view. Below, I've explained my reasons for some of the
comments. I'm looking forward to hearing others' opinions!

Cheers,
Mira


 Section 4: I think this section also needs a bit of thightening. I think it
>> might be best if the content of the footnote in included in the sentence
>> opening the bullet list of audiences. The order of the list also seems to be
>> of significance. I suggest rewriting the list so that it consists of two
>> bullet points. Something along the lines of "technology developers" and
>> "international development community". Each point could list different
>> actors from the surrent list who might be pursuing the respective objective
>> of our roadmap. Thereby, the list of audiences will be congruent to the
>> stated objectives of the document. That will build some continuity between
>> sections 3 and 4.
>>
>
> i'm not perosnnaly sure i agree with this comment. i believe that there are
> more than the 2 categories you mention. particularly ngos or entrepreneur
> wiling to design and deliver specific services which are not in the
> inteernational development community. i also believe that academics, people
> working in the field and donors are 3 different pieces even if part of the
> internation development community.
> Policy makers are also yet another category.
> same for technology developers, i feel it is a bit too vague.
> So let't see what other thinks.
> i'm also not very enthusiastic about stating as an opening sentence that
> the roadmap is a technical document.
>
> but again, let's see where the consensus is in the group.


I think that we should be able to spot NGO's and academics depending on
their topic of interest. E.g electrical engineers, comp scis, etc. would
fall under "technology developers"; while development studies, ICT4D,
business studies etc. would fall under the "international development
community". I agree that the task of drawing a line between the two can be
problematic because of the cross-cutting nature of the topic. Still, exactly
because of the cross-cutting nature the topic, its audience could be
extended to include practically any type of organisation. So a list based on
the type of organisation (business, international development, ngo,
academic, etc.) can appear somewhat meaningless.



 Section 5: The name of the section is a bit of a misnomer. Essentially it
> lists topics which are out of scope. I think this should be made clear in
> the title and I would suggest positioning the section immediately before the
> conclusion.
>

here also i would be happy to get the group's view on that.
> Most of the documents i read have a scope section at the beginning so that
> readers know what is out of scope. with the motivation section we setup the
> big picture, with the objective who landscape of our research, and in the
> scope we define the exact footprint we are adressing in the landscape. So i
> tend to think that it is at the right place.


I understand what your reasons for keeping the section in its place. In that
case, I would suggest rewriting its opening so that it gives the story which
we discussed in our conversation earlier today. Namely, the interest of the
group in delivering (Web) content to mobile users in developing countries,
via readily deployable "small screen" low-cost (or otherwise?) technologies.
Including a definition of mobility might be appropriate.  Currently, the
section is dominated by the sentence "The specific aspects presented below
have been specifically excluded from this version of the roadmap." As a
result its content tilts towards "out of scope" and is more appropriate
towards the end. So I stand by my comment :) Only a bit of rewriting for you
to do :)

>
> Thanks again for the comment and i just implemented the first two comments,
> and part of the third one. waiting for other people opinion on the last two
> ones.
>
> I also implemented the resoltion of the day about infrastructure, cost and
> mobile device (in the scope sectin and costs section)
> Cheers
> Stephane
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr Mira Slavova
>>
>> ICT4D Consultant
>> Mobile Market Design 4 Development
>> mmd4d.org <http://mmd4d.org>
>> ++44 (0)7734 408829
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr Mira Slavova
>>
>> ICT4D Consultant
>> Mobile Market Design 4 Development
>> mmd4d.org <http://mmd4d.org>
>> ++44 (0)7734 408829
>>
>
> --
> Stephane Boyera         stephane@w3.org
> W3C                             +33 (0) 5 61 86 13 08
> BP 93                           fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
> F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
> France
>



-- 
Dr Mira Slavova

ICT4D Consultant
Mobile Market Design 4 Development
mmd4d.org
++44 (0)7734 408829