Re: Webizen progress and next meeting

On 8/4/2014 1:04 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 4, 2014 12:56 PM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 8/4/2014 12:52 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 4, 2014 12:29 PM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Thanks to all who participated in last Friday's call.
> >> >
> >> > The Doodle poll for the next call is at [1].
> >> >
> >> > The agenda is to review the inputs that people have been putting 
> into the wiki [2].
> >> >
> >> > Some of the more specific points to discuss:
> >> > We had good consensus on the Goals at the last call.  We should 
> try to finalize by this meeting.
> >> > We agreed to use the Twitter questionnaire as a means to assess 
> what should go into the program.  I've drafted a sample 
> questionnaire.  I'm not sure if we'll be able to conclude on this 
> questionnaire at the next meeting; but we probably need to get close 
> and finalize it by the following meeting.
> >> > Julian continues to look at getting us some professional help as 
> well.
> >> >
> >> > Jeff
> >> >
> >> > [1] http://doodle.com/n8szipz24xxad5nz
> >> > [2] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen
> >>
> >> At the risk of sounding like a broken record, developers have no 
> first-class voice with regard to w3c matters, especially with regard 
> to direction in terms of TAG and AB  - at least for WGs we have 
> possibility for invited experts, but IEs have the same issue: while 
> granted status for WGs, they have no (even collective) representation. 
> I understand that some membership was opposed to this, but is it just 
> off the table?  I don't see anything in the survey even hinting at this.
> >
> >
> > In my book, nothing is off the table.  However, I am trying to 
> represent where the task force currently is thinking.  No one in the 
> task force indicated any interest in this at the last call, so I 
> suppose it is off the table unless it gets traction in some way in the 
> task force.
> >
> >
> I'm pretty sure I did in irc on the last call?
>

I suggest that you join the next call (rather than IRC only) so you can 
debate the issue with people who disagree.  The purpose of the task 
force is to have people with differing views come together and develop a 
consensus.  That doesn't happen if one point of view makes some remarks 
on IRC without introducing them into the conversation.

Further, imho, even looking at the IRC log after the fact it was not 
clear what you were saying in IRC.  I looked back at the record and I 
see six comments that I suppose is where you think you said that there 
needs to be collective representation.  They are:

<bkardell_> As I said previously... We have enough swag
<bkardell_> The benefit is membership and representation
<bkardell_> I agree with ACS on this
<bkardell_> Correct me: invited experts have no ac representation, right?
<jeff> brian, Correct.
<bkardell_> So, again, I think this is the primary goal of a Webizen 
program.
<bkardell_> A way to collectively create "unions" with ac reps

But to me it is confusing.  I don't know what you mean by swag (1). I'm 
not clear who you are agreeing with (3) - were you agreeing with the AC 
that we should not have an electoral college?  It is not clear what 
"this" refers to (5).  And the word unions is a reserved term (at least 
in US law) and noone is talking about unions (6).

To make matters worse, I have extracted the above segment from 30 lines 
which scribe what was being discussed on the call.  If you include those 
30 lines interspersed, it is even harder to piece together that you were 
proposing something.

So, please join the next call and provide your input.