Re: Webizen proposal: Call for volunteers

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:52:28 +0600, 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
>> > On 6/24/2014 8:58 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> >> 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

>> 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.

More specifically, the question was why not sign up 120 members as a bloc  
that should be able to swing a vote to get an AC rep and is more people  
than many large members have *participating*, and then quit as a member?

Answer: No sharing of info from the AC rep to those who voted (how would  
we enforce that?), no a priori right to join groups (but you can work in  
public, right?), ...

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

Actually, I pointed out that I would formally object if we didn't have a  
sensible voting system. And using an unknown one to select one isn't  
sufficient for me not to object.

I also feel it isn't too clever to have AC reps elected by people who are  
not really able to understand how they were represented even after the  
fact.

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

I feel that it isn't worth the admin cost of sending them, nor is it clear  
that they help solve a problem for someone.

> 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.

Which, IMHO, is the problem statement.

I'm leaning toward suggesting that people set up a non-profit  
organisation, and pay the membership fee. It clarifies a lot of the  
issues, reduces a lot of the overheads, and if the purpose of the  
organisation is to be a member of W3C, it provides what I *think* the big  
benefit of the program is. It still fails for people who don't have a  
community around them...

Which I think may help me think about a problem statement and provide  
something useful.

cheers

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 20:42:07 UTC