Re: Webizen proposal: Call for volunteers

On 6/24/2014 11:42 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto: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
>>     <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.
>
>
>
> 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?

Yes, they are opposite.  Some felt that as a result it would be hard to 
get consensus, but the AC asked that we find a consensus.

Correct, a unanimous vote is not 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..

Yes, some felt that was too much.  Others felt that it was too little.

>     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?

There were probably about 100 people in the room at the time.

>
>
> -- 
> Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com <http://hitchjs.com/>