W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > December 2014

Re: Re: We need a more UI-friendly group

From: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 14:20:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CABc02_Kb15U-37cW1BuZfPPwWQH6awx-BuGEf_Afrz55pd53Qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: abhimanyu0003 <abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org>
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, noloader@gmail.com, WebPlatform Public List <public-webplatform@w3.org>
​(I was replying to Doug, I was actually justifying your reasoning for
Facebook)​


☆*PhistucK*

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:18 PM, abhimanyu0003 <abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org>
wrote:
>
> Okay, I understand.
>
> ---
> </Abhimanyu>
>
>
> ---- On Sun, 14 Dec 2014 00:23:08 -0800 *PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com
> <phistuck@gmail.com>>* wrote ----
>
> I think his main argument is the reach, which you cannot replicate with
> any other tool or method, I believe.
>
>
> ☆*PhistucK*
>
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Hi, Abhimanyu–
>
> I agree with you that we need a better way to organize, coordinate, and
> communicate. Email and IRC are fine for many of us, but I also know many
> (especially younger) people who prefer online social networks and
> forum-like interfaces.
>
> I think using Facebook, specifically, would likely to be a divisive
> approach, rather than a uniting one (as you've seen in many reactions
> here). Moreover, it doesn't have the kinds of tools needed for real online
> collaboration for working. You mention that we could have broader reach on
> Facebook, but the quality of contributions is just as important as the
> number of contributors, and you haven't made a strong case that the quality
> would be improved.
>
> I don't think it would be wise for us to invest energy and attention to
> something that is likely not to work well for our needs. So, I suggest we
> follow Amelia's advice to turn the conversation from Facebook to gathering
> ideas about use cases and requirements that would enable the kind of modern
> user experience that you'd like to see.
>
> What specific features of Facebook do you think would help us? You
> mentioned a few, but I think creating a comprehensive list would help a
> lot. Here are some of the things you mentioned:
>
> * online interface
> * persistent conversation threads/articles that "bubble up" to the top
> when new comments are added
> * notifications of new posts
> * notifications of personal mentions
> * real-time discussion
> * file-sharing
> * tracking member contributions
>
> When we first launched the site, we had a sort of forum interface, but we
> shelved it to concentrate on the documentation. But we do need something
> along those lines. There are a number of tools that could help us do so,
> without using Facebook.
>
> Amelia mentioned The Bug Genie, which is good as an issue tracker, but
> doesn't meet your other requirements, especially the social aspects.
>
> Renoir recently found a tool called Phabricator [1], which may meet some
> more of your requirements; we're thinking of testing that out in the new
> year.
>
>
> I appreciate your suggestions and enthusiasm. The most important way that
> contributors can help the project right now is by contributing content. If
> you have a topic that you're an expert in, and find our documentation
> lacking, please feel free to dig in and help improve the docs for that
> topic!
>
>
> [1] http://phabricator.org/
>
> Regards-
> -Doug
> Project Lead, WebPlatform.org
>
>
>
> On 12/13/14 10:21 PM, abhimanyu0003 wrote:
>
> I am not saying "Let's wrap up our business here and do our stuff on
> Facebook" so that a hypothetical "modern" teenager will find it more
> familiar.
>
> In terms of neutrality and the spirit of open, nothing beats IRC and
> emails, especially when you're not using Google and whatever but your
> custom email with a not-for-profit email client.
>
> There's no way I'm against communicating on these platforms or in favour
> of picking a proprietary platform which is heavily regulated, biased,
> makes a helltonne of money each second, and might infringe privacy. And
> cannot be indexed.
>
> What I'm saying is this: instead of a casual group that I can make out
> of interest for discussing WPD-related work, we collectively make a
> casual (and of course, unofficial) Facebook group and test for a month
> or so.
>
> That's my proposal. A lot of you might not be having a Facebook account.
> And no matter how easy to set up, Facebook is, well, a fancy and
> solely-for-profit internet service. Not even a service but an excuse to
> ignore the real world. But I've seen work accelerate like hell when an
> informal group, like a Facebook group, yes which is highly regulated,
> not open, and just too fancy, is used instead of other formal and more
> efficient services because of its increase in activation energy and
> reaction points (chemistry concepts).
>   It will be solely informal. But if I create such a group, you can be
> sure that it'll die in a day. If we all collectively show (not fake)
> enthusiasm and crete a group for beta testing, then you'll see for
> yourself what I mean. Given that we get that many members.
>
> I don't want to end up again in how is Facebook>emails or how
> emails>Facebook. Emails are our best bet because we aim on communication
> and not how much PHP our communication has. Plus, emails are proven
> tools of stable discussion. No one knows when Facebook will shut down,
> crash, start charging money, spam our monitors with ads and whatever.
>
> I just want you all to try wholeheartedly just once.
>
> I also understand that most of us are not ready for a heads-on collision
> with a highly complicated and chaotic "social" entity with so much
> sophistication and entropy. But only if we stop being lazy, Facebook can
> seem lightweight, smooth, and we can be totally insulated from outside
> world too.
>
> [P.S. Talking of fancy communities, I think Google+ Communities, without
> any hangout crap, are much, much better than Facebook groups. Plus,
> everybody who has a GMail account already has a Google+ account. Google
> also seems less aggressive in forcing business down its users throats
> than Facebook. But my good experience is limited to a Facebook group.]
>
> ---
> </Abhimanyu>
>
>
> ---- On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 11:21:17 -0800 *Jeffrey
> Walton<noloader@gmail.com>* wrote ----
>
>      >> Well, all things you've mentioned can be counter-argued or
>     criticised. So,
>      >> kindly read along.
>      >>
>      >> Facebook archives will also be permanently available.
>      >> ...
>
>     Additionally, some folks don't participate in the social networking
>     experiments. I would not want to join <favorite network here> to hunt
>     down topics or comment on occasion.
>
>     The social networking experiments don't have the best track record of
>     honoring users privacy (if there is such a thing when you join). The
>     best defense is to not join in the first place. Cf.,
>
> <http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/01/facebook-class-action-lawsuit>
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/01/facebook-
> class-action-lawsuit
>
>     (and others).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 14 December 2014 12:21:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:09 UTC