Re: Comments on Webizen proposal

On 5/11/2014 7:31 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> 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.

Modification in wiki.

>
>>>    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.

Modification in wiki.

>
>>>    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.

On the task force call today, a consensus was reached to modify 
somewhat, which is now on the wiki.

>
>>>    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?

Hmm, I guess one could create a CG that focuses on a user perspective, 
but I'm not sure I've seen that focus.

>
>>>     - 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
>

Received on Monday, 12 May 2014 20:35:52 UTC