Re: Webplatform Facebook Group

The point of such a bot is to make sure you can go to any place and still
have all of the discussions.
As long as there is a sticky thread that tells you that anything you post
is copied to Facebook, Google+ and the mailing list, I do not see any
problem with it.
But I am not a lawyer, obviously.

Maintaining several disjoint places does not scale.


☆*PhistucK*

On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Ann-Katrin Travelling <
aktravelling@hotmail.com> wrote:

> And then followed by this:
>
>
>
> If you get the user ID from Facebook and you have the email from the
> mailing list it's not rocket science to pair them together. But as long as
> we don't transfer "who said what" between platforms it's less of an issue.
> As long as people don't start tagging each other in a Facebook post.
>
> Remember European rules and US rules are different when it comes to
> privacy. Just saying that before a bot is launched, some caution is needed.
> But I can't say much more until I really see what you plan to do with it.
> And as far as I understand this is just on a planning stage so far?
>
> Just saying we need to get all the challenges and opportunities out there.
> Nothing stopping us from setting up both a G+ and FB page and let people
> choose themselves, that could be done without too much thought - but any
> bots or automatic transfer of data I'd be very careful with. Until we
> understand the full picture at least.
>
>
>
> -
> Please excuse potential spelling mistakes, small keyboard, sent from my
> phone.
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
> From: "PhistucK" <phistuck@gmail.com>
> Sent: 17 April 2015 6:50 pm
> To: "Ann-Katrin Travelling" <aktravelling@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Webplatform Facebook Group
>
> I am not sure about any privacy issues. You do not map e-mail addresses to
> Facebook users. In my 'vision', it will be a single Facebook user for the
> bot that simply unifies everything.
> Also, if you do not want to get posts already posted to Facebook in the
> mailing list, almost any e-mail client today has a rule feature that can
> filter those. I am pretty sure that interested parties use such a client
> and the messages can easily be marked as "imported from Facebook".
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: aktravelling@hotmail.com
> To: phistuck@gmail.com; abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org;
> public-webplatform@w3.org
> CC: schepers@w3.org
> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 12:34:33 +0200
> Subject: RE: Webplatform Facebook Group
>
>
> I tried to respond to this but apparently unsuccessfully to all, it just
> whent to one person and not to the mailing list. So another try...:
>
> That needs to be very clear though, if you post on a mailing list you may
> not be too happy to see that your posts are also published on FB. The posts
> had to be stripped of the ID, we don't even know if people use the same
> mail for FB and Google Plus as they do here. And I'll leave the mailing
> list if I'm spammed with FB posts, there are notifications for that if I
> want to get info outside of Facebook. Bots for mass mails is a tricky
> business. Not the least from a privacy point of view.
>
>
> Ann-Katrin
> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: phistuck@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:27:35 +0300
> To: abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org
> CC: schepers@w3.org; sgtpooki@gmail.com; public-webplatform@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Re: Webplatform Facebook Group
>
> Should there be a bot that collects the posts and comments and publishes
> them on a mailing list (and maybe also the other way around)?
>
>
> ☆*PhistucK*
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 6:56 AM, abhimanyu0003 <abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org
> > wrote:
>
> Thanks for accepting this proposal. G+ is not better than Facebook,
> they're both the same (with Facebook's membership times more than G+').
> There are many technical groups on Facebook too, you probably have just not
> looked. Their differences don't matter, they're both the same.
>
> I also agree that we need proper marketing and publicising but first,
> we'll need to make the group active and add as many members from WPD as we
> can. Here's the URL, so if you have a Facebook account, just visit it.
>
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/WebPlatformOfficial/
>
> I could publicise it in appropriate places, but I'm not sure that will be
> very helpful when we've just begun. First we have to establish some
> authority, so that when people look, they know that we mean serious
> content. A new group won't give that impression, so let's stay away from
> publicising right now (however, we can use technical forums to target
> aspiring members saying that we're new and need members, that'll be a
> totally different thing).
>
> ---
> </Abhimanyu>
>
>
> ---- On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:54:05 +0530 *Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org
> <schepers@w3.org>>* wrote ----
>
> Hi, Russell–
>
> I tend agree with you that G+ might be a better place to get
> high-quality contributions, but I'm open to anything that helps build an
> maintain the contributor community.
>
> I like what you're saying about marketing and publicity. Are you
> interested in helping brainstorm and drive that?
>
> Regards–
> –Doug
>
> On 4/16/15 10:41 PM, Russell wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I've been eavesdropping for a while and finally thought I would throw in
> > my two cents on this. Probably more like two hundred cents..
> >
> > I think the group needs a lot more exposure, but I am worried that a
> > Facebook group could bring in a lot of bad submissions. Is there an easy
> > way to manage non-serious submissions? I have seen much more of a
> > programmer / IT community on G+, so I would throw in my vote for that
> > before Facebook, but we still have the potential for the same problem.
> > Twitter could be even better, but there is already a web platform
> > account, it just doesn't seem to be doing much evangelism.
> >
> > Either way, we definitely need a core group of individuals dedicated to
> > marketing and publicity if this project is going to take off like it
> > needs to. I remember hearing about the webplatform when it first started
> > up and remember the excitement within myself and my fellow developers,
> > but I don't think anyone really remembers anything about it until they
> > randomly stumble upon it again. All the devs I know use MDN, Dash,
> > devdocs.io <http://devdocs.io>, or whatwg. I find myself using those
> > more often too, as webplatform doesn't seem to have the "umph" needed to
> > take over.
> >
> > Part of this is because webplatform rarely shows on Google results.
> > Webplatform.org does not rank anywhere close to MDN and we are not
> > showing for the most common of css/html/javascript searches. We need to
> > hit Google's front-page, and thinking about it more now, I think that is
> > most important. Let's make all the groups.
> >
> > Have we worked on SEO at all? Is anyone pointing to webplatform.org
> > <http://webplatform.org>'s site when answering stackoverflow questions?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:13 PM Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org
> > <mailto:schepers@w3.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Abhimanyu–
> >
> > Okay, let's explore this idea again. I admit to being skeptical, but if
> > you think it will help get more contributors, and to keep contributors
> > active, then I'm open to at least testing it.
> >
> > What do you suggest for next steps?
> >
> > Regards–
> > –Doug
> >
> > On 4/12/15 3:26 AM, abhimanyu0003 wrote:
> > > I recommended months ago of having a solid third-party, somewhat
> > > clutter-ish and compromised portal: an open Facebook group.
> > >
> > > I love the WPD and it'll one of the best technical projects in the
> > > future, but my other priorities are so easy to get my hands into,
> > while
> > > contributing and discussing WPD work is non-modern.
> > >
> > > An open Facebook group will mean our attention being diverted to WPD
> > > more frequently and have much more members (an open group is seen by
> > > friends ofall members, thus increasing our visibility and getting
> > more
> > > enthusiastic contributors).
> > >
> > > ---
> > > &#60;/Abhimanyu&#62;
> > >
> > >
> > > ---- On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 04:19:12 +0530 *aaa@bzfx.net
> > <mailto:aaa@bzfx.net>* wrote ----
> > >
> > > Have we reached out to see how we can be more accommodating?i
> > >
> > > I'd much prefer not using a vendor-specific, or even
> > > vendor-controlled, source.
> > >
> > > Austin.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 1:46 AM, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com
> > <mailto:phistuck@gmail.com>
> > > <mailto:phistuck@gmail.com <mailto:phistuck@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > While it is not dead, some vendors (or a single vendor?) are
> > > instructing their members to prefer
> > >
> > <
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/RNk93vpOaV8/2_hw97dJ0NQJ>
>
> > > other
> > >
> > <
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/RNk93vpOaV8/fhNVU0s8DCQJ>
>
> > > documentation venues.
> > > To me, this is really sad.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you can do something about it?
> > >
> > >
> > > ☆*PhistucK*
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Jonathan Garbee
> > > <jonathan@garbee.me <mailto:jonathan@garbee.me>
> > <mailto:jonathan@garbee.me <mailto:jonathan@garbee.me>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > These kinds of projects also don't just get a jump start
> > > then take off and keep going. Initial interest
> > happens, all
> > > the people who are just interested head out, then you are
> > > left with a far smaller group of core contributors. Then
> > > over time that core group even changes as life
> > happens and
> > > new shiny things come along. (Try to recall the often
> > > provided bell-curve of tech adoption, then make the curve
> > > narrower and far more dramatic. Then toss a few more
> > curves
> > > in over time.)
> > >
> > > Documentation projects in particular have one major flaw,
> > > people don't feel it is worth their time to
> > contribute. They
> > > are paid to do write code that functions and move on
> > to the
> > > next thing. So taking time out to contribute to a
> > document
> > > is hardly on their mind. WPD is in a very slow-pace
> > area and
> > > we want contributors that really care about the
> > quality of
> > > their work. That quality comes at the cost of things
> > moving
> > > even slower.
> > >
> > > Things aren't dead, they are just stagnant. As WPD offers
> > > wider community engagement then hopefully we can
> > collect a
> > > few more core contributors that will make things not
> > seem so
> > > slow. I'd much rather have a handful of core contributors
> > > that do true quality work then an army of low-quality
> > > contributions that makes things seem more active. The
> > > content provided is far more useful in the end that way.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Doug Schepers
> > > <schepers@w3.org <mailto:schepers@w3.org>
> > <mailto:schepers@w3.org <mailto:schepers@w3.org>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, Austin has been a really prolific contributor
> > > (thanks!), and we also have Nishanth Babu adding
> > > beginner DOM tutorials, among many other contributors
> > > and content.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We've actually concentrated quite a lot on
> > > infrastructure over the last few months; Renoir
> > has done
> > > a great job.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We're even adding over some new functionality, like
> > > specs.webplatform.org <http://specs.webplatform.org>
> > <http://specs.webplatform.org>
> > > that hosts more experimental specifications, and
> > adding
> > > a technical discussion area where developers and
> > > designers can ask questions about spec
> > development. Our
> > > emphasis is on closing the gap between standards
> > > development and developers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards–
> > >
> > > –Doug
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/10/15 6:31 PM, Austin William Wright wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Slow maybe, not dead. Over the last month I've
> > > touched almost all the
> > >
> > > HTML element pages, merging duplicates, adding
> > > examples, correcting
> > >
> > > normative references, and importing data.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I also noticed a great TLS/HTTPS upgrade, and
> > > MediaWiki upgrade, iirc.
> > >
> > > So even the server is getting love, it's not
> > just me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Austin Wright.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Ric Johnson
> > > <ric@opendomain.org
> > <mailto:ric@opendomain.org> <mailto:ric@opendomain.org
> > <mailto:ric@opendomain.org>>
> > >
> > > <mailto:ric@opendomain.org
> > <mailto:ric@opendomain.org>
> > > <mailto:ric@opendomain.org
> > <mailto:ric@opendomain.org>>>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is the WebPlatform project dead? I have not
> > > seen any progress in
> > >
> > > quite a while.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought this was an amazing chance to help
> > > new developers learn
> > >
> > > web technologies, but it seems that we have
> > > dropped the ball.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is there anyone interested in kicking this
> > > project back on gear?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ric Johnson
> > >
> > > OpenDomain
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>