Re: [minutes] 2014-09-05 Webizen task force meeting

Is the audio recorded? 

Some of the short-hand doesn't seem to capture the convo (note to self; help scribe...) 

Thankyou again all...

Timh,

Sent from my iPad

> On 6 Sep 2014, at 4:50 am, "Coralie Mercier" <coralie@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's teleconference minutes are at:
>  https://www.w3.org/2014/09/05-webizen-minutes.html
> 
> Text snapshot:
> --------------
>                   Webizen Task Force teleconference
>                           05 Sep 2014
> 
>   [2]Agenda
>      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webizen/2014Sep/0006.html
>   See also: [3]IRC log
>      [3] http://www.w3.org/2014/09/05-webizen-irc
> 
> Attendees
>   Present
>          Veronica Thom, Coralie Mercier (koalie), Tim Holborn
>          (mediaprophet), Jeff Jaffe, Michiel Leenaars, Brian
>          Kardell, Armin Haller, Olle Olsson, Virginie Galindo
>   Regrets
>          Ann Bassetti, Georg Rehm
>   Chair
>          Jeff Jaffe
>   Scribe
>          koalie, veronica
> 
>     __________________________________________________________
> 
>   <koaliie> [6]Previous (2014-08-20)
> 
>      [6] http://www.w3.org/2014/08/20-webizen-minutes.html
> 
>   <veronica> hi all
> 
>   <koalie> scribenick: koalie
> 
>   <mediaprophet> :)
> 
>   Jeff: We're into our 3rd or 4th call + had extensive
>   discussions on the mailing list
>   ... we had a task force in the spring, presented a proposal to
>   the Advisory Committee, they rejected it
>   ... our focus since reboot has been on a survey
>   ... We made good progress and today is the final review of the
>   questionnaire
>   ... intent is to send next Monday, 8-Sep
>   ... we'll tweet it to 93.4K W3C followers
>   ... we'll send it to the W3C advisory committee
>   ... we'll make public mentions of it so not only twitter users
>   can take it
>   ... survey will last 3 weeks
>   ... the week of the 29-Sep we'll have another TF teleconference
>   ... to review the results and finalise the structure of the
>   program
>   ... in order to present at the next AC meeting the week of
>   October 27
>   ... let's go to the survey
> 
>   <koaliie> [7]draft Webizen Program interest survey
> 
>      [7] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/webizen-survey/
> 
>   Jeff: go to the survey, please
>   ... we took mostly what was in the wiki
>   ... I prefer that people look at the instrument itself
>   ... so you see the actual survey rather than the outline in the
>   wiki
> 
>   Tim: How are you reflecting in the intro that W3C is changing
>   as the world evolves?
>   ... side and ideology, v-a-v HTML, also accelerating
>   participation (cf. actions with IGF)
> 
>   Jeff: Our focus on industry is a way, Community Groups is
>   another; we're changing in so many ways, I didn't want to lose
>   my audience is a too long manifesto
>   ... if you have suggestions, after reading the prologue,
>   please, send them.
> 
>   Michiel: I'm reading this as though it were written for a 4th
>   grader
>   ... positioning is very abstract
>   ... it wouldn't appeal
> 
>   Jeff: Currently, what we're trying to do with that, if you look
>   at the bottom of the prologue, there is a link to the goals of
>   the program which are a bit more specific
>   ... to your point, I'm not an expert in either writing or
>   creating surveys
>   ... So I'd love to get more input from people
> 
>   [Virginie joins]
> 
>   Jeff: We could provide in the survey a link to a longer
>   description
> 
>   Michiel: Can we skip the questions if you don't reply yes?
> 
>   Jeff: No, unfortunately, that is a known limitation of the
>   instrument
> 
>   Tim: [question was about whether the introduction of the
>   program, provides a review function that allows it to be
>   reviewed, refined, and improved once the program has developed
>   (and obtains take-up, etc.)]
> 
>   Jeff: That's my intention, it's not overly explicit
>   ... In question 5, one of the answers, the 2nd, that's a
>   somewhat weak example which reflects what you're requesting
> 
>   Jeff: I don't know if there is a place where we should make
>   this stronger in the wiki or survey
>   ... to show we're on the same page
> 
>   <michiell> I think all the yes/no questions can go away
> 
>   <michiell> For instance question 8 could be deleted if question
>   9 has a option 'no tangible benefits' at the end
> 
>   <michiell> That would reduce the amount of questions
> 
>   Tim: how many languages is this survey being offered in?
> 
>   Coralie: English; I could provide French translation
> 
>   Coralie: but then, why not other languages? how long would that
>   delay opening the survey?
> 
>   Tim: It's worth thinking about it
> 
>   Jeff: Great idea
>   ... Coralie how long would it take?
> 
>   Coralie: Probably a day or so
> 
>   Jeff: I'm happy to delay this a day or two to give the option
>   for people to fill out the survey in their own language
>   ... we could translate in 20 languages or so
> 
>   <virginie> could help Koalie reading french translation, once
>   done
> 
>   Coralie: note: English is the work language of the W3C
> 
>   Tim: there is a demand, still
> 
>   <mediaprophet> +1
> 
>   <scribe> ACTION: Coralie to get survey, once final, translated
>   in W3C Offices languages [recorded in
>   [8]http://www.w3.org/2014/09/05-webizen-minutes.html#action01]
> 
>   Jeff: there is nothing technical in the survey and foreign
>   people are more used to technical English
>   ... A non-technical survey might benefit from being
>   multi-lingual
> 
>   <mediaprophet> +1
> 
>   Jeff: it also signals to the world that we're taking extra
>   steps to be inclusive
>   ... a couple-day delay is fine
> 
>   Virginie: I wanted to check when the finalization of the survey
>   takes place, when is it frozen?
> 
>   Jeff: We plan to complete and freeze the survey in today's
>   meeting
>   ... and run survey from sep 8-29
> 
>   Jeff: with translations, this slips a bit.
> 
>   <scribe> scribenick: veronica
> 
>   armin: I have a question about #7
>   ... unique member id #, maybe extend with uri or url
>   ... could be more clear for people
> 
>   <ahaller2> Armin: Listing your profile on the W3C website and
>   Name listed on our Supporters page (with # years) seem to be
>   similar for people. Maybe we can combine them to one answer.
> 
>   jeff: q7 are radio buttons
>   ... and you will be able to type multiple
>   ... there is a bug with q7
> 
>   jeff: should allow multiple selection
> 
>   koalie: I'll fix this
> 
>   jeff: and q9
>   ... this is a fantastic beta team!
> 
>   tim: with 9, maybe keep it simple, way to provide suggestions
> 
>   jeff: we thought about that
>   ... problem is unless we get hundreds of people answering the
>   survey, we won't have critical mass
> 
>   <ahaller2> +1 for other suggestions
> 
>   tim: how about using some kind of tags?
> 
>   jeff: yes, that's a technological solution
>   ... if I'm the first one and everyone sees my ideas, but if I'm
>   the last one, no one sees my ideas
>   ... at the moment I'm just trying to get this off the ground
> 
>   tim: accepted
> 
>   jeff: so far lots of great comments
> 
>   brianK: there was a proposal, not the best but not bad
>   ... general consensus
>   ... not very clear, wishy washy
>   ... so that's where we are right now?
> 
>   jeff: which proposal?
> 
>   <michiell> I've just sent an alternative introduction to the
>   mailing list.
> 
>   <michiell> I think the 100 dollar should be part of the
>   questionnaire
> 
>   brian: basically an electoral proposal, $100 annual fee
> 
>   jeff: that proposal - wanting more, less - was rejected by AC
> 
>   briank: that's what I meant
>   ... now soul searching what this should be
>   ... sent some comments in email
>   ... wondering are we definitely saying this has to be a
>   membership program that requires a fee?
> 
>   jeff: this goes back to our first [rebooted] task force meeting
> 
>   <jeff> [9]https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen#Success_criteria
> 
>      [9] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen#Success_criteria
> 
>   jeff: at beginning of our task force mtg, we populated the wiki
>   ... one of success criteria was don't lose money
> 
>   <michiell> For me 'don't loose money' is not the main criterium
> 
>   jeff: nice that you're doing this, but u could end up with
>   program with lots of people requiring some support
>   ... could be it $50, $100; that's also reason for survey
>   ... just a starting point
>   ... so that's where we're at now
>   ... doesn't have to be W3C creating grassroots as [brian]
>   mentioned in his posts
> 
>   tim: q9, whether someone in affluent country supporting the
>   cost
>   ... developing countries lower cost?
> 
>   jeff: in prologue, we recognize there could be need for dif
>   levels of fees
> 
>   tim: other question about students
>   ... some can afford the fee; and the internet society?
> 
>   [Coralie leaves for another meeting]
> 
>   jeff: this is already a heavy weight survey
>   ... don't want to complicate it more
> 
>   brian: wish we had a more passive way to collect this
>   information
> 
>   brian: barrier to entry to participate in the survey
> 
>   michiel: i sent alternative introduction in email
> 
>   <ahaller2> +1 for open end question!
> 
>   michiel: we can ask some people if $100 is ok, but it's a
>   random statement
>   ... someone mentioned internet society
>   ... to have everyone pay may not be necessary
>   ... if u price the wrong way, nobody will join
> 
>   jeff: question is how do we determine what is the median of
>   what people would pay
>   ... buyer wants to spend as little as possible
> 
>   michiel: if they want to support the open web, what are you
>   willing to donate to be involved
>   ... people donate $ because they care and want to see things
>   happen
> 
>   jeff: we currently have the supporters program but no one is
>   contributing
>   ... so I agree token is probably wrong word
>   ... nor accessible
>   ... what is the right word?
> 
>   tim: sustainable?
> 
>   brian: realistic?
> 
>   jeff: how about basic fee?
> 
>   <ahaller2> Armin: what about leaving the word out completely
> 
>   jeff: let's go with 'basic' fee vs token
> 
>   <ahaller2> ... just fee
> 
>   tim: if asking what they'll pay, need to know where they're
>   from, and their local currency
> 
>   jeff: could people type here what they'd be willing to pay for
>   this?
> 
>   <michiell> 45 euro
> 
>   <mediaprophet> $150 AUD
> 
>   <mediaprophet> ~
> 
>   <ahaller2> $120
> 
>   <jeff> $1000
> 
>   <virginie> 50 euros
> 
>   <olleo> 50 euros
> 
>   <bkardell_> Unanswerable, depends what it is :-)
> 
>   <mediaprophet> if i was really poor - ~75 - but it’s less than
>   the cost of a certificate...
> 
>   5,000,000 jpy
> 
>   jeff: okay, interesting
> 
>   tim: still important is culture
>   ... not as commercial as other fields?
>   ... engagement protocol sets foundation for how this happens
> 
>   jeff: good point
>   ... after the AC rejected the June proposal, I was skeptical
>   ... how to make this to not lose money, make it acceptable to
>   AC
>   ... culture is important
>   ... winning proposal could be what's in brian's blog post
>   ... for now, let's go ahead with the survey
> 
>   <michiell> We can ask the question about money and let them
>   answer in local currency
> 
>   <mediaprophet> is this the proposal discussed?
>   [10]https://medium.com/@briankardell/web-standards-we-want-part
>   -i-chapters-ca71985bf914
> 
>     [10] https://medium.com/@briankardell/web-standards-we-want-part-i-chapters-ca71985bf914
> 
>   jeff: if this one dies then we may try a third time
> 
>   tim: I think this it incredibly important work and I support
>   this
> 
>   brian: I would like to make an observation
>   ... perhaps a radical sugestion
>   ... while there are lots of interesting points, whatever level
>   of pricing
>   ... we don't know what this will look like
>   ... I feel like that's one of the things AC will reject
>   ... long survey might not get us the information
>   ... what about couple of concrete proposals and then survey
>   which one on thos proposals do you like
> 
>   <michiell> Two or three scenario's - which one is the webizen
>   you want
> 
>   brian: too much choice is overwhelming
>   ... if you tell people $100, might complain but they pay and
>   they'll be happy
> 
>   <virginie> I feel this idea to offer 3 nice stories is a good
>   suggestion
> 
>   brian: can we narrow it down more?
> 
>   jeff: so Brian, this may surprise you
>   ... I believe I've done this
>   ... look at q3, I anticipate most would select 'it would
>   depend'
> 
>   <virginie> I think that what bk is expecting is complete
>   package description
> 
>   jeff: when we correlate the information, it will give us the
>   options
> 
>   brian: logging into survey, there's many more questions
> 
>   armin: comment on payment
>   ... for the cost, stress that even if the program is free it
>   will make participation stronger
>   ... if people are joining as indiv in free program, get more
>   ... agree with brian's freeform survey
>   ... get comments, ability to express opinions
> 
>   jeff: agree, we should add question at end for their own
>   perspective on this program
>   ... ideas you may have
> 
>   virginie: wanted to highlight brian's suggestion
>   ... could be complementary to survey
>   ... could be additional question
>   ... which one of 3 options would you prefer
>   ... could be redundant but could be interesting
>   ... maybe classifying 3 scenarios
>   ... e.g.25 equival dollars, u get ...
> 
>   <michiell> And you can actually implement more than one in the
>   end
> 
>   virginie: happy to work on some words for these scenarios
> 
>   jeff: sure, but I don't know if we'll get consensus of the
>   right scenarios quickly
> 
>   tim: who cares about the merchandising?
> 
>   <michiell> I don't think there is a W3C shop?
> 
>   tim: are people going to join just to be part of W3C versus
>   joining for merchandise
>   ... social media, at the moment, there are 125 followers
>   ... gauge how many people are attaching to the concept?
>   ... 120 followers on twitter tag
> 
>   jeff: I don't know what people are going to be interested in
>   ... I'd rather ask them rather than assume
> 
>   tim: who's working on promotion on twitter?
> 
>   jeff: Coralie is handling this. contact her.
> 
>   michiel: i think merchandise important; why not separate this
>   ... a merchandise shop
> 
>   jeff: might be possible
> 
>   michiell: some people want to be involved, some just want
>   merchandise
> 
>   jeff: thanks everyone for input. some changes may be small but
>   are important
>   ... translating is huge idea and will take a little time
>   ... I'll schedule call week of 29 Sep
>   ... by then we'll see results
>   ... based on partic and results, we'll see if we have a program
>   of if we're back to square 1
>   ... please tell everyone to answer the survey!
> 
>   <virginie> thanks !
> 
>   jeff: thanks everyone for your participation today!
> 
>   <ahaller2> bye
> 
> Summary of Action Items
> 
>   [NEW] ACTION: Coralie to get survey, once final, translated in
>   W3C Offices languages [recorded in
>   [11]http://www.w3.org/2014/09/05-webizen-minutes.html#action01]
> 
>   [End of minutes]
>     __________________________________________________________
> 
> 
>    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [12]scribe.perl version
>    1.138 ([13]CVS log)
>    $Date: 2014-09-05 18:46:35 $
> 
>     [12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>     [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Coralie Mercier  -  W3C Communications Team  -  http://www.w3.org
> mailto:coralie@w3.org +336 4322 0001 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/
>

Received on Friday, 5 September 2014 19:00:17 UTC