Re: Webizen progress and next meeting

On 8/8/2014 10:42 AM, Crawford, Mark wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> In looking at your response and measuring Charles as well, I am not convinced that we are even close to identifying what we really want to accomplish with this program, nor do I believe we have consensus on that point.  Clearly the market survey to identify what the desires of externals is will be important to help us decide how to move forward, but I wonder if it also wouldn't be appropriate to do a market survey of existing members to se to what extent they share the sentiments of those pushing for an action?  Both need to be carefully crafted to include all of the different positions we have seen articulated amongst the TF.

I actually tried to do that at the recent meeting of the Advisory 
Committee.  You may recall that I was unconvinced that there was a way 
forward with conflicting views.  There was strong support of the AC 
meeting to proceed.

Subsequently, a dozen AC reps who have strong views have joined our task 
force.

>
> Best Regards,
> Mark
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 2:12 PM
> To: Crawford, Mark; Webizen TF
> Subject: Re: Webizen progress and next meeting
>
> Mark,
>
> I'm top-posting because I agree with most of your assertions/questions,
> but not necessarily the conclusions.
>
> That is, I agree that we have had lots of success, produce adequate
> quantity and quality of recommendations, and that we should not be
> introducing "Webizens" to drive W3C revenue, etc.
>
> Yet I think it would still be incredibly valuable if we could design an
> effective Webizen program.
>
> It is not that we needed Webizens to get us to where we are today. But
> we will need a stronger relationship with the developer community to
> stay at the cutting edge and ensure that we stay at the top of our game.
>
> The success of the Open Web Platform means that there is now a community
> of web developers whose needs and wants are more demanding than in the
> past.  They are not only designing static web pages. They are building
> complex distributed applications.  They are exploiting rich multimedia,
> working offline, and getting their Apps to run seamlessly across a
> dizzying set of devices.  Their requirements will drive web architecture
> like never before.
>
> W3C has already adjusted to increase our outreach and it has been
> helpful for us.  Some of the approaches (Community Groups, Test the Web
> Forward, Industry Vertical Interest Groups) have already expanded our
> community and brought new ideas into the consortium. A program to
> increase individual affiliation with W3C could help us further in
> preparing for the challenges of tomorrow.
>
> I'm not sure whether "Webizen" is the best or unique answer, but it is
> certainly worth attempting to see if we can design such a program.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 8/7/2014 12:10 PM, Crawford, Mark wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> After listening to all of the dialogue of the last call and trying to sort through the various emails, I really am beginning to wonder if we are not a solution in search of a problem.  I think we have already gotten too far into the weeds of what the program should look like instead of discussing if we really need a program at all.
>>
>> 1) Per the wiki, we have articulated the goals as: Attract more stakeholders, get closer linkages, increase general public review, provide a means for influence, information sharing, & enhanced stewardship.
>>
>> 2) In looking at these goals, I have to ask why?  I ask this because based on the current membership structure and span of control:
>>
>> 2a) W3C has many wildly successful specifications that have broadly advanced the W3C vision for the Web.
>> 2b) New recommendations are in the queue that are eagerly anticipated by the web community.
>> 2b) W3C recommendations are generally accepted as tantamount to De Jure standards around the globe.
>> 2c) W3C has more than enough participation in our working groups (in fact sometimes too much participation).
>>
>> 3) Based on 2, I really wonder: Why do we even need to be having this task force?  I ask this because based on what I have seen and heard so far, the answer to each of the following questions is a resounding no:
>>
>> 3a) Do we believe that our current recommendations are deficient in quantity or quality?
>> 3b) Do we see that achieving the goals of this TF will somehow improve the quality or quantity of our recommendations?
>> 3c) Do we believe that achieving the goals of this TF will somehow result in broader recognition, acceptance and/or adoption of W3C Recommendations?
>> 3d) Is our current pre-eminent Web standards position threatened by individual web heads to the point that we desperately need to co-opt them?
>> 3e) Will achieving the goals of this TF somehow strengthen the W3C with respect to its competitors?
>> 3f) Will this program increase W3C membership and revenue?
>>
>> 4) Looking at the individual goals, the question then becomes:
>>
>> 4a) Attract more stakeholders - hmm.  Do we think that we will somehow increase a sense of ownership by webheads, and if so, why and for what purpose?
>> 4b) get closer linkages - are we really lacking in this area in a manner that hurts the quality of our recommendations?
>> 4c) increase general public review - The director already welcomes comments from anyone.  What is the deficiency that we are trying to overcome, and does it take a new category of participation or a simple change to the review process?
>> 4d) provide a means for influence - Be careful what you wish for.  Do we really want more outside influence on the development of our recommendations, and will such outside influence enhance or detract from their quality and more importantly their adoption - especially by the major players who are in reality the parties that drive widespread adoption.
>> 4e) information sharing - we have a publicly available website, publicly available draft specifications at every step in the process, publicly available comment mechanisms.  How will the webizen program improve over what we have?
>> 4f) Enhanced stewardship - Do we somehow believe that the current membership and leadership is somehow deficient in its stewardship of the web?
>>
>> Finally, we have a separate thread on the AC list around the Openness and Transparency CG.  Although there is some issue with the name - a sentiment I don't share - Perhaps a CG is the real solution here (other than the W3C desire for increased revenue from this program).  The CG could function as a webizen ecosystem, with leaders and followers who could use the forum to express their ideas in whatever level of formality they chose with minimal impact on staff. Wouldn't that be sufficient as a mechanism to increase interaction, provide a sense of participation, etc?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Mark

Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 15:14:25 UTC