Re: Comments on Webizen proposal

On Sun, 11 May 2014 03:50:13 +0200, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

>
> On 5/10/2014 12:54 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>> Hi Jeff and all,
>>
>> Here are some comments on the Webizen proposal [1].
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen

>> - Benefits.
>>      1) Electoral college: +1. I have no input on voting at this time.
>>    2) CEO teleconference. Suggest changing "update" to "discussion"
>
> changed

+1 by the way.

A written Q&A session with a bunch of W3C staff (more or less whoever you  
can get) is probably as good as a teleconference. Hearing a lecture is a  
very slow way to get information, and there is relatively little  
opportunity for most people to actually ask a question.

>>    3) What is a Webizen ID card? -1 until better understood
>
> It is an ID card with your webizen # on it.

this seems like high cost (postage) for little benefit. Most people old  
enough to spend $100 need a bigger wallet for the cards they have, not  
another card.

>>    4) Flourish in CG list. +1
+1

>>    5) T-shirt. +1 if fulfillment is managed by a third party (and  
>> budget needs to take that into account)

You need a 3rd party to handle production and distribution, the T-shirt  
should be unique from year to year (is it an annual or one-time benefit?),  
and the budget matters.

>>    6) Discount: +1 to discount for validator suite and also schwag at a  
>> W3C store (if we have one)

+1

>>    7) Webizen blog: +1 if moderated by Webizen representatives.

-1 Running a blog for a group of external people as a PR exercise is not a  
good idea. Paying $100 and getting *yet another* blog site is probably not  
either, unless you back it with W3C's persistence policy as a serious  
promise. And then it becomes a real commitment of resources, since you  
cannot afford to completely outsource the moderation.

I would consider offering people the chance to publish stuff on the  
official W3C blog. And warn them that this means it has to be good enough.

Which raises the question of why we think only english speakers deserve  
the full range of opportunities and benefits.

>>    8) How w3c works session: I like the idea. It's not clear to me that  
>> we want to limit this to Webizens. For instance, it could be viewed as  
>> a way to generate interest in the program.

I would be inclined to suggest we run sessions specifically for webizens.  
Being the people who paid $100 to fund what everyone else gets free (see  
also language, above) isn't exactly a selling point, if you want this to  
be a big success...

>> - Long-term benefits
>>     - Create user groups. How would this be different from CGs?
>
> This would focus on users of the technology.

How is that different from CGs? Or IGs and BGs?

>>     - Best practice discussions, webinars, luncheons: I like the idea  
>> generally, but I propose a different model. If W3C is putting together  
>> a local event, I think it should not be limited to Webizen
>> participation. But there might be a fee for general public and either  
>> free or discounted entry for Webizens.

Either way.

>> We want to remain open to as many people as possible

Yes, but you still seem to want paychecks. And that means providing  
motivations for those of us who pay them to keep doing so.

>> (and mixing Webizens and potential Webizens sounds useful).

Indeed.

[...]
>>   - What does it mean in practice for a Webizen to be associated with  
>> an Office?
>
> Not sure since I didn't write that section.  I've clarified based on my  
> understanding.

I hope it includes the idea that "a significant fraction of the fee paid  
is made available to offices for translation of documents and real-time  
interpretation of speakers at events, to encourage a more global  
participation in W3C".

cheers

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

Received on Sunday, 11 May 2014 23:32:07 UTC