Re: Webizen progress and next meeting

On 8/6/2014 7:41 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2014 5:10 AM, "Christophe Guéret" 
> <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl 
> <mailto:christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>> wrote:
> >
> > On 5 August 2014 23:57, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com 
> <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5 August 2014 23:33, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Top posting to start a thread on a related idea.
> >>>
> >>> Some of the Webizen input was of the form - if Webizens do not get 
> to elect representatives who participate in Charter review - then no 
> point in having the program.
> >>>
> >>> Some of the input we received from the Advisory Committee was of 
> the form - if Webizens participate in the AC Charter review, then we 
> have deprecated Membership to a level that the AC is not comfortable with.
> >>>
> >>> Part of our challenge is to find the middle ground between these 
> two statements - which at first glance offer little in the form of 
> middle ground.
> >>>
> >>> Here is one idea that someone presented to me. Have the Webizens 
> elect representatives.  Encourage them to participate in Charter 
> review.  The Director will (of course) pay heed to their input - as 
> the Director always cherishes input from the public.  But have this 
> review outside of the formal W3C process.
> >>>
> >>> This would give Webizens a tangible value.  But it would finesse 
> some of the AC concerns.
> >>>
> >>> It also might be a little too "cute".  Maybe Webizens would feel 
> that this does not provide real Charter review privileges.  Maybe the 
> AC would still be uncomfortable.
> >>>
> >>> I'm just thinking out loud.  Interested in input.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for initiating, imho, a fascination discussion.
> >>
> >> Democracy, which is the primary governance system of the world 
> today, is based on the principle of "one man one vote".
> >>
> >> There's a certain problem in computing known as the "sybil attack" 
> or "sock puppets" which can also be equated to "vote stuffing".  It's 
> where a single entity can have a disproportionate effect on the 
> reaching of consensus.
> >>
> >> What I'd love to see for webizens is an "opt-in" situation where 
> people can join a community and have a say in the future of the web, 
> but that one person can only have a single voice in the collective.
> >>
> >> All members of the group would also receive a dividend based on the 
> commons, ie the common value creation.  In time, if enough value is 
> created, in a fair way, the incentives will be for more and more 
> people to become webizens, and benefit mutually form the process.
> >>
> >> Just my $0.02
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Interesting discussion indeed. I would also me leaning towards the 
> "one person / one vote" side and suggest we forget about this idea of 
> having the Webizens elect representatives that would act as ACs. 
> Actually, I think this is how ACs currently work. Unless I'm mistaken, 
> their are appointed by a member organisation following some internal 
> (democratic ?) decision process and consult within the organisation 
> before giving official feedback. In that sense, I'd says all members 
> of the member organisation are Webizens that already use their AC as a 
> representative.
> >
> > Focusing on the individual Webizen could maybe motivate them more to 
> join. A "you join, you vote" would be stronger and more seducing than 
> a "you join, you pick up someone that can vote for you" but we may 
> give a collective lower value to the recommendations provided by the 
> Webizens than to that provided by the members in order to preserve the 
> advantages of being an AC. Let's say, e.g., that during a charter 
> review AC can provided individual feedback and block the charter 
> whereas all the Webizen comments are merged as one "Webizen feedback" 
> that can not be considered to block the charter in its review process. 
> This global review would then have a list of contributors to list 
> those who contributed to it without pin pointing to the individual 
> contributions. With such a system, one willing to just have a say will 
> be able to do it via a Webizen status whereas giving more direct, and 
> eventually blocking, feedback will require a full membership status.
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> >
> > --
> > Onderzoeker
> > +31(0)6 14576494
> > christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl <mailto:christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
> >
> > Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)
> >
> > DANS bevordert duurzame toegang tot digitale onderzoeksgegevens. 
> Kijk op www.dans.knaw.nl <http://www.dans.knaw.nl> voor meer 
> informatie. DANS is een instituut van KNAW en NWO.
> >
> >
> > Let op, per 1 januari hebben we een nieuw adres:
> >
> > DANS | Anna van Saksenlaan 51 | 2593 HW Den Haag | Postbus 93067 | 
> 2509 AB Den Haag | +31 70 349 44 50 | info@dans.knaw.nl 
> <mailto:info@dans.knaw.nl> | www.dans.knaw.nl <http://www.dans.knaw.nl>
> >
> >
> > Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!
> > http://worldwidesemanticweb.org/
> >
> > e-Humanities Group (KNAW)
> >
>
> The likelihood of change has something to do with how radical it is.  
> I would suggest that this idea is considerably more radical and 
> perhaps the analogies with one person one vote are over-stated, 
> pure/direct democracy is used almost nowhere, while some kind of 
> representative democracy has been shown to be effective in hundreds or 
> thousands of working systems for a number of reasons.  Charter Review 
> is one thing, voting in TAG and AB are another and participation in AC 
> conversations and fairly rare meetings are another.  Fitting into the 
> existing AC model seems both easier to accomplish and more 
> effective/manageable on both ends.  What I'd advocate personally is 
> simply w3c support for creating an "org" out of a minimum number of 
> paying "webizens" who are not members of an existing org without the 
> hurdles of creating a legal entity - one step being CG, perhaps using 
> the existing chair nomination and election process to choose an AC, 
> this would have the effect of giving them ML , wiki and blog too.  
> Doesn't seem that complicated, costly or disruptive in a bad way.
>

So I can't tell.  Did my proposal accomplish this or fall short of this?