- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 16:35:46 -0400
- To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, public-webizen@w3.org
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