- From: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:19:03 +0200
- To: "public-webizen@w3.org" <public-webizen@w3.org>
Hi Webizen Task Force,
The minutes of today's teleconference are at:
http://www.w3.org/2014/08/20-webizen-minutes
There was one action item [although not formally recorded]:
ACTION: Jeff to, based on this call, propose further questions to the
survey.
The minutes are linked from the wiki:
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen#Meeting_records_and_actions
Cheers,
Coralie
Text snapshot:
--------------
- DRAFT -
Webizen Task Force teleconference
20 Aug 2014
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webizen/2014Aug/0040.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2014/08/20-webizen-irc
Attendees
Present
Coralie Mercier, Georg Rehm, Armin Haller, Brian
Kardell, Jeff Jaffe, Julian Harriott, Veronica Thom,
Michiel Leenaars, Mark Crawford, Olle Olsson, Ann
Bassetti
Regrets
Christophe Guéret, Virginie Galindo, Vagner Diniz,
Léonie Watson (IRC only)
Chair
Jeff Jaffe
Scribe
Coralie Mercier
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Run through the wiki to make sure we are aligned on
our proposal
2. [6]Discussion of marketing survey
3. [7]Discussion of email thread about "representation"
including how to represent this thread in the survey
* [8]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<koaliie> [9]Previous (2014-08-01)
[9] http://www.w3.org/2014/08/01-webizen-minutes.html
<scribe> scribenick: koalie
<jeff> [10]https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen
[10] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen
<michiel> Hi all
<michiel> BTW: I'm using the SIP bridge successfully
[Jeff Jaffe goes over agenda]
Jeff: I'd like to exit today's meeting with a consensus on how
we might include the representation to the survey
... Mark pointed out that the marketing survey questions should
be submitted to our Advisory Committee as well as twitter
followers
[type q+ in IRC join the queue]
[dial 41# to raise hand]
[dial 40# to lower hand]
Run through the wiki to make sure we are aligned on our proposal
Jeff: Last time we talked about the goals, mission and success
criteria
... let's start with goals
<koaliie> [11]Goals of program
[11] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen#Goals
Jeff: Any modification?
... seeing no queue, I'll assume those are agreed for now
<koaliie> [12]Missions of the program
[12] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen#Mission
Jeff: no comment on missions?
<koaliie> [13]Success criteria of the program
[13] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen#Success_criteria
Jeff: Any suggestion on deleting, adding success criteria?
Olle: Success criteria should go back to goals
... and bring value to W3C
... increase review, spec writers, if we don't reach those
goals, I don't see a value in the program
Jeff: Feel free to edit the wiki, and if you haven't, I'll do
it in the coming days.
Michiel: based on experience with frontend dev, there's a
certain disappointment with spec development
... they love the Web but not the W3C
... it's weird but it's tangibly out there when I organise
events
... get the foot folks of the industry who are apparently in
love with browsers but not W3C anymore; there's a love/hate
relationship, to change the idea the people have of W3C would
be a goal for me as well
Jeff: Excellent idea. I believe it was always intended.
... the language we use in the wiki --attract stakeholders,
etc, there's nothing wrong with adding "build appreciation"
... feel free to add the bullet to the wiki
... if you don't do it, I'll take care of it in the next few
days
Brian: Careful with the language
... don't sound too bureaucratic.
Discussion of marketing survey
<koaliie> [14]Target market and marketing study
[14] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen#Target_market_and_marketing_study
Michiel: Not being a Twitter user, there's bias in asking this
huge echo chamber, other channel active as well?
... do you need to be on Twitter to answer?
... many of the people I represent don't have twitter accounts
[Jeff gives info on context which led to adding marketing
survey as a means]
Jeff: We're open to different approaches
Michiel: ISOC people care about the net but I guess the Web
also
... it's beyond the IETF community
... ISOC has communication channels
... like mailing lists and newsletter
... I'm willing to connect you with the Chief Internet
Technology Officer
... There are some points where ISOC IETF and Webizen intersect
Jeff: At the moment, I'm not thinking to reach out to the
internet society
... I've reached out to them several times over the years,
sometimes successfully, other times less so
<michiell> Jeff, there is a new CEO and new CTO @ Internet
Society, and I think there is opportunity to strengthen
contacts
<AnnBassetti> the influence of ISOC may vary by country or
locale ... my impression, in the USA, Seattle area, is there is
little or no awareness or participation in ISOC
Julian: Ricom? is quite happy to put out a questionnaire and do
analysis; is that still wanted?
jeff: is that the org we spoke to a few weeks ago?
Julian: Yes
Jeff: I don't recall they provided input; they're happy to
review it but they didn't do anything
Jeff: are they waiting for me?
... it was a good suggestion, and we did speak to them
Julian: I'll go back to Ricom? and I'll get back to you
Jeff: I appreciate this
Armin: question 2 particularly is missing "how much are you
willing to pay for" e.g. e-mail address etc.
... What you get for what it costs is missing
Jeff: There are a couple ways for doing it
... I'm open to different input
... on the last call, we said you have to start somewhere
Jeff: if you ask people what they want to pay, people will
generally want to pay less
... we came up with USD 100 to cover expenses, so in the survey
we tell that is what it costs, and would you join for that?
<michiell> Ask the money question at the end
Jeff: is there a better different way to ask?
Armin: Of course, we could say that @currency?@ in each
country. Another is to name what benefits with costs and ask
... what would you be willing to pay for which?
Jeff: what are you suggesting? different programs?
Armin: name services and values
... e.g. USD 20 for an e-mail address
Jeff: Well, we do that. there's a prologue which describes the
service, and a question that asks whether people would sign up
<michiell> I would suggest to use a 'card sorting' mechanism
<AnnBassetti> or maybe there needs to be an explicit question
about cost?
<michiell> This makes people put their favorite features on top
Jeff: does the prologue need to be closer to question 2?
Armin: [something about would you join a freemium model]
Jeff: We would be losing money if this were free
<michiell> That gives a qualitative indication as well as an
overall preference
Jeff: The free model would get a lot more support probably, but
that's not consistent with what other people have said: we
can't lose money on this.
Julian: In terms of survey content, Ricom? has said we need to
test what we're going to offer, and not just t-shirts
... what needs to be in this is the mission, what people want
to see, what they are buying, their reward for signing up
... if you're in agreement, what I can do is get back to Ricom?
and see what feedback I get
Jeff: isn't that what question 7 does?
... if there's a better way to say it, sure
<michiell> Q1 should actually be the last question, I think
Discussion of email thread about "representation" including how to
represent this thread in the survey
Jeff: the survey came out of the last meeting
... since then, there was a lot of input about representation
Jeff: it's sensible to put questions related to that
... but there were so many different points of view that I
don't know the right way to ask
Brian: what I was proposing in e-mail is what developers want:
participate as a first class citizen in the W3C
... we have various open source orgs etc, but to put together
an org is non-trivial
... W3C has been helpful creating community groups
... how to avoid legal loopholes to create an org?
... if you can do that you'll get a hundred, a thousand
developers
<michiell> +1
Brian: provide a nice way for developers to be first-class
citizen in the W3C
... they can create a github org or something else
Jeff: At one level, and chaals said it, anybody can create an
org
... but for W3C to create such an org, that's one of the things
we're not really good at
... W3C itself is not an org
... we're not a legal entity
[W3C is hosted by legal entities]
Brian: is that necessary to be a legal entity to participate in
W3C?
Jeff: Yes and no.
... we have ways for individuals to participate in W3C as
individuals
... we have hundreds of invited experts in our working group
Brian: They have no representation
... they don't have a say in the advisory committee
Jeff: It would be a quite astonishing change in the structure
of the W3C to have folks on the advisory committee who are
individuals
... I guess it could be done
... one way to do it is you can have every webizen be a member
of the AC but that wouldn't scale very well
Brian: I agree
[musical interlude]
Jeff: another way to do it is via a webizens electoral college
... that was a proposal I had brought forward to the June
Advisory committee meeting and that got substantial push-back
... do you have any other mechanism in mind?
Brian: You create a github org, put out your license, state
what your operations are. I'm proposing little change, really.
<ahaller2> +1 for electoral college
Jeff: here's a possible interpretation
... if every webizen went to this so-called org, and it had a
voice on the AC, it's the same proposal as the college, except
it's weaker
<MarkCrawford> lessened concerns
Jeff: if we have a single AC rep, I'm curious, would that be
acceptable to e.g. Mark who voiced concerned last June?
... So, that's a compromised position
Brian: You assume I'm talking about a webizen org, I'm talking
of an org.
<michiell> Should perhaps be possible for a community group to
'elevate' key persons without membership to AC status by means
of a group donation?
Brian: whatever it takes to join, whether that org is made of
one or hundreds of developers
Michiel: My idea was that CGs are already a pretty open
mechanism
... I'd see a model where people pitch in together
... that would allow more open input into the AC model
... going back to 1994, I wanted to join W3C, I was just a
student. I got frightened and joined 5 years later.
... looking from the outside, it was an ivory tower I didn't
have 50K$ to join
... the CGs mechanism is attractive
... it works to get people together
Jeff: Linkage between CGs and AC?
Michiel: if you could elevate a CG to get an AC rep of the CG,
my guess is it would be far better to get individuals there and
be represented
... a tiered system
... where people affiliated around a subject get to have a
voice
Jeff: Each CG gets an AC rep?
Michiel: Not all. Get a payment slot available for a given CG
to send a person to the AC
Jeff: Do we know of any CG that would be interested in doing
that?
Michiel: I don't have a list of them, but my guess is that any
interest is topic-based
Jeff: I'd be interested in understanding some practical
use-cases
... We have an open-annotation CG that's been active for quite
some time
... the Team said, gee, we're ready to launch a Working Group
... from then on, Hypothes.is became a startup member for 2
years [to be in that WG]
... your particular example of CGs funding involvement, I
haven't seen any example of this
Michiel: it's a mechanism to elevate the group to a certain
status that gives them a voice
Armin: Another approach would be to link to the membership
cost: for every webizen, we get x representatives
Jeff: That was the electoral college proposal last June
... an AC rep for every 200 webizen
... that got shot down
<michiell> The startup fee would mean 20 webizens per vote
Jeff: 200 was in between full member and affiliate fee
Brian: What Michiel proposed is close to what I'm talking about
... people are free to establish a group, pretty much like a
CG, perhaps with founding documents of how they operate,
... we don't care how they get funding (paypal etc.)
... we don't care how many members
... all I care about is removing the legal hurdle
... the joining fees remains the same
Jeff: How is that different from my proposal in June,
... which the AC shot down
<michiell> Jeff, the difference is I guess that it is not a
quorum but a group
Brian: What I saw in June was fairly complex
<AnnBassetti> I believe the AC shot it down, for fear that
companies would quit their regular memberships and buy back in
as "webizens"
<AnnBassetti> IOW ... for much less money
<olleo> Comment: getting "webizens" to create a legal org
raises some challenges, e.g. in what jurisdiction is it
established?
Brian: you can't shoot down someone who can pay the price to
join as a member
<ahaller2> +1 AnnBassetti, I also got the feeling that this was
the concern
<olleo> Comment: So a way to view Brian's proposal is that W3C
provides a framework for a kind of "virtual orgs".
Mark: ... my concern would be to have a certain level of
assurance of IP made by legal entities which can be made
accountable in court
<michiell> comment: we have the same situation for invited
experts
Mark: we would not have the same situation if we had a legal
entity, or even individuals signing IP policy individually
... we don't have the same level or recourse
... to the point I wanted to make, having heard the dialogue,
what it is we want for these webizens?
... are we interested in getting their technical input? or
governance input?
... are the goals listed sufficiently descriptive?
... it would be much more important to get input for spec
content and not so much at the AC level or AB level
... I looked at a different org, OASIS, which has both
corporate and individual memberships
... corporate level has voting rights, a say in the running of
the org
... individual level doesn't
Jeff: At least for me, the things that aren't clear to you are
clear to me, here's how the fine line is
... The most important thing that comes out of W3C is
specifications
... they affect lots of people
... we think it's important to grow this set of people who
develop specs, provide requirements, etc.
... it's the general public
... it's our view point that we lack the view point from
developers
... by creating this community, we aspire to increase the level
of participation and affiliation to W3C.
<michiell> comment: if people don't like the governance, they
won't contribute the technical input
Jeff: in the W3C means of getting work done, there is a
difference between getting requirements and getting the
technical input to address those requirements
... the former is what the working groups do
... we already have an effective mechanism to get this
technical input from non-members: invited experts
Mark: that's your position, I don't hear that from several
other members of the group
... you carefully distinguish AC charter review and other AC
tasks, is that on purpose or an omission?
Jeff: One of the rights and privileges of AC reps is that they
can name people from their orgs to be in working groups
... we have an IPR lack of clarity if a webizen can be an
invited expert in any group
Mark: why don't leave the AC out of @@@if this is the issue?
Jeff: That's what I was proposing initially with upper house
and lower house
<AnnBassetti> I think I like the bicameral possibility of
structure (upper / lower houses)
Brian: on the legal aspect, currently a lot happens in public
mailing lists
... some even avoid W3C discussion and bring back stuff later
to W3C
<MarkCrawford> Unfortunately I need to drop
Brian: in regard to Mark's concerns about IPR agreements with
individuals being the problem, merely pointing out
... that individuals participate as invited experts, on mailing
lists,
... CGs, twitter and on IRC channels that both do and don't
belong to W3C
... - and we have open source orgs and individuals that
participate as first class today.
... If we can solve those issues to satisfaction, surely we can
do the same here.
.... Where is the legal argument?
... IEs are individuals but they don't represent anybody
Jeff: You're right that there aren't a lot of fine lines
... each thing that we introduce we introduce with a lot of
care
... in case of IEs which is one of the things you mention, they
make IPR commitments
... in cases this is more restrictive than Members
... furthermore, IEs are only invited if invited by the chair
of the working group
... with a new program such as the webizen program, we're in
the same situation
... we need to be careful when we figure out legal protection
of the Web
... I'll take an action, based on this call, to propose further
questions to the survey
... but we don't have a clear consensus
... we don't need to have consensus for the rest of the survey,
but it's important to have an understanding of what each
proposal is
... and to consider what has been shot down before
... I'll put my ideas on the list or wiki
... and invite others to contribute to phrasing
... I'd like to get the survey out by September
... we need another meeting
.. I'll send around a doodle poll for the week of September 1
Jeff: Anything else?
<michiell> Thanks, all.
<veronica> thanks
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version
1.138 ([16]CVS log)
$Date: 2014-08-20 16:14:36 $
[15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[16] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Coralie Mercier - W3C Communications Team - http://www.w3.org
mailto:coralie@w3.org +336 4322 0001 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2014 16:19:14 UTC