Re: Webizen proposal: Call for volunteers

On 6/24/2014 9:48 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 24, 2014 9:42 AM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 6/24/2014 8:58 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> >>
> >> [ Bcc w3c-ac-forum ]
> >>
> >> On 6/10/14 8:21 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen
> >>
> >>
> >> FYI, I just made a few changes to [1]: moved the Naming and Voting 
> into separate documents (Webizen/Name and Webizen/Voting, 
> respectively), added a Problem Statement section, added an Issues + 
> Questions section to the top of the doc.
> >>
> >> The Problem Statement is currently empty thus sorely needs input. 
> Please update this section directly or send your input to 
> public-webizen and I'll add it.
> >
> >
> > As Coralie has pointed out [2], the AC has asked us to reconvene the 
> Webizen Task Force.  Among other things, I am working with the AC to 
> ensure that we have sufficient resources for a marketing study since 
> that was one of their requirements.  Once I ensure we have sufficient 
> resources for success I anticipate having several task force calls.  I 
> expect that we will not only introduce a Problem Statement but we will 
> make major changes throughout the wiki as the current proposal was not 
> accepted by the AC.
> >
> > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webizen/2014Jun/0011.html
> >
> >>
> >> -Thanks, AB
> >>
> Can you share which parts were particularly problematic? Otherwise, 
> it's not very conducive to building a better proposal.
>

There was no particular vote on specific pieces.

Some felt that we were giving too many benefits that are usually 
reserved for Membership.

Some felt that we were giving too few benefits that are usually reserved 
for Membership.

Some felt that our grab-bag of benefits (e.g. T-shirts, stickers) were 
not desirable.

There were sundry other issues that people raised.

In short, no-one liked the proposal, although for different reasons.

In a straw poll, over 90% did not support the proposal in its current 
form.  But most wanted us to try again.  So we will be starting over at 
the beginning, imho.