Re: Webizen proposal: Call for volunteers

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

>
> On 6/24/2014 9:48 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 24, 2014 9:42 AM, "Jeff Jaffe" <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.
>


These two things are opposite, so it sounds like just an exercise in
shifting who disagrees with it / for what reason.  I'm not sure exactly how
consensus building/votes work for this... Presumably a unanimous vote isn't
required?

I'm really wondering at which 'benefits' in particular?  The only one I
really see is the ability to have something like AC representation and, in
my mind at least, that's sort of the whole value proposal right there..


> Some felt that our grab-bag of benefits (e.g. T-shirts, stickers) were not
> desirable.
>
>
I agree.  I said this in the telecon/irc one week too..  It actually seems
like it "cheapens" it to me to add this, and simultaneously actually makes
it more expensive... I see no value in that.  . If you want to sell those,
or give them away with a simple donation/sponsor model - just do that.



> 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.
>
>  That is a very useful/enlightening bit of statistic right there.  How
many were in attendance?


-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com