- From: Veronica Thom <veronica@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:00:56 -0400
- To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
- CC: "public-webizen@w3.org" <public-webizen@w3.org>
On 9/5/2014 2:59 PM, Timothy Holborn wrote: > Is the audio recorded? > > Some of the short-hand doesn't seem to capture the convo (note to self; help scribe...) sorry, I'm not very good with scribing! Veronica > > 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 19:01:34 UTC