See also: IRC log
http://www.w3.org/2009/06/08-mw4d-minutes.html
<Raphael> +1
<kiwanja> Minutes OK for me
approved
Lauri to review tools on the wiki and add extra note from .mobi
<scribe> [POSTPONED]
stephane to send maputo exec summary
<scribe> [DONE]
Steph to put maputo executive summary discussion on the agenda for
next mw4d meeting [no need]
<Raphael> The report seems self-explanatory for me. And I appreciated it. Thanks to the writer(s)
<Raphael> (last workshop report, I'm refering to)
Ken to link with people at georgia tech and present wha t we are
doing and see if they are interested to join
<scribe> [ONGOING]
Steph to draft illiteracy section
<scribe> [DONE]
Stephane add a section background draft some bullet points
<scribe> [DONE]
Stephane to create a discussion page attached to the roadmap
<scribe> [DONE]
http://www.w3.org/2008/MW4D/wiki/roadmapv2-discussion
raphael: idea from mediawiki
the way they workis that everybody can put things in
same here ?
i suggest yes
consensus making process
<Arun> I agree about the mailing list
stephane: i would suggest we keep links with the email
<Renjish> agree
greater audience
so edition+email
<kiwanja> i agree to maintain both due to different audiences, re: bulletin board and mailing list
<Raphael> Steph: People are welcome to add substance on both channels.
<betty> OK.
<Raphael> +1
<Arun> Ok
<Raphael> Lauri is OK.
issue: government on audience
lauri: ok
<Arun> Sure, but do we have specific things in mind for them ?
<Zakim> Raphael, you wanted to comment on the discussion page and to
<Adesina> I am here. I will not beable to audio-join. I am actually in a conference now
arun: anything we want to explicitly do for them ?
and how to reach them ?
<Renjish> I think we should have an ecosystem description in the audience section which will mention all stakeholders, but the scope should specify the focus of the issues addressed
<nicolas> no more battery for my cell. I'll follow on IRC.
<betty> Audience, add the government & decision makers to assure them about plus/minus, challenges, risks of MW4D.
<betty> In addition, government & NGOs should collaborate.
stephane: ecosystem ?
<Adesina> Audience meant stakeholders?
renjish: role of each, and their relationship with others
<Lauri> Now Lauri managed to join the IRC channel :-)
great !
<Raphael> Arun: do you mean that the document won't fit all audiences we aim at?
renjish: one way classify stakeholders: enablers, users, providers
<Arun> I just meant to understand how we would address govt as an audience
<Arun> It would be ideal if we can influence decision makers but this doc is probably meant to be too technical
<Raphael> I personnally think the doc might be too technical for most Gov people
<Adesina> Govt are major service provider and financier in many developing countries
<betty> Agree with Adesina.
<Arun> As you can see, I agree with you Raphael :-)
<Raphael> indeed ;)
<betty> In government, there are also technical staffs.
<Raphael> true
raphael: how to reach this technical staff
making a document at donors and govt, it needs to be simplified
<Renjish> Gov and NGO related issues are mainly policy oriented which we can handle in the future directions section
however, the audience may be wide
better
<betty> It's OK to make technical roadmap.
<Adesina> Maybe a section of the docuemnt should specify buy-in or value for each stakeholder in MW4D
<Raphael> could you please repeat, Steph?
<Lauri> Example in Kenia we found IT-director in Governement. Not all governements have them.
<Raphael> Steph: example of the Maputo event with the summary, having few clear key messages.
<Raphael> thanks
arun: government: decision makers or technical staff ?
<betty> In government: the decision makers could read the executive summary. Then they could consult technical experts to study the technical documents.
<Adesina> It is important not to focus narrowly on technical officers, but policy makers are important as well
<Lauri> Even with IT-manager they don't understand all the possibilites available by mobile services. That is a purpose of our report.
<Raphael> Depending how long the doc is, could we have document segments targeting different segments?
renjish: policies is important
<Arun> Yes, I agree with recommendation and policy guideline kind of inputs but then we need to decide if this document is the right place
<Raphael> different audiences, I meant
<Arun> I agree with you Stephane
<Adesina> We don't need to write for each stakeholder but making it clear what are the different values for diff. skateholders is important
stephane: policy guideline is more an output that part of this document
+1 to adesina
<Raphael> should a policy guideline be an output of our group?
<Lauri> A good book is: Mobile Internet for Dummies. But it is too wide. We could make references to good topics in the book.
<Adesina> not really, but identifying value for them in the document
<Lauri> As I know all the authors of the book, I can negotiate rights to copy some parts of it into our report if needed.
<Adesina> Luari, what is the link for Mobile Internet for Dummies
<Raphael> it is in paper format, I believe
<Raphael> http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470239530.html
<Raphael> I think we sould write our arguments on the discussion page
<Raphael> since it is a bit complex
<Raphael> this item
<scribe> ACTION: renjish to summarize policy guideliens discussion on the discsuion page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-mw4d-minutes.html#action01]
<betty> Agree with Raphael.
http://www.w3.org/2008/MW4D/wiki/roadmapv2#background
issue: background sectoin
<Raphael> you mean context?
<Raphael> thanks
<Raphael> numbered issues, great idea
<scribe> ACTION: steph to put an issue number in front of each issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-mw4d-minutes.html#action02]
<Arun> Do you think existing working solutions and their drawbacks shud go here ?
<Arun> Ok It is fine then
<Arun> It is more of motivation
<Adesina> The background section can be used to specify value for each stakeholders
<Raphael> Motivation addition seems a good idea
Resolution: background should be transformed in Motivation
<Raphael> to me :)
<betty> Yup. Motivation sounds better than background.
issue: context
raphael: identifying context
we cannot list all context
too numerous
but we could characterize some typical context
<Adesina> context is just specifying rationale for the document and while it is important
example: literate rate+connectivty rate
ten to 20 characteristics
<Arun> We could have pre-requisites listed for every tech. solution.
to define technology possibilities in some context
<Arun> Writing context for every geo would be too time consuming and dynamic
<Arun> so we mention the parameters/ characteristics required as pre-requisite by the solution.
<Renjish> we should leverage existing literature for summarizing the contexts
raphael: a matrix
might be a solution
a summarized way
might be good
raphael: better if i make a proposal
<scribe> ACTION: raphael to summarize how to deal with context in the discussion page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-mw4d-minutes.html#action03]
issue: accessibility issues
<Adesina> Using existing literature is a good is=dea
<Raphael> I tend to agree with Steph. Accessibility is studied quite widely in other places
steph: mention accessibility specificities but out of the scope of this document
<Raphael> the "traditional" issues
<betty> Accessibility for developing countries is complicates enough. I suggest wen concentrate on this.
<Arun> I am fine with Steph's proposal to mention that accessibility issues for developing countries are different than developed countries.
<betty> Yup.
<Raphael> +1
<kiwanja> agree with everyone re: accessibility
steph: in the scope of the document ?
<Renjish> yes
resolution: accessibility aspect should go to the scope of the document
<Lauri> As time is short, I like to add one technology missing from report now: Web-server in the mobile phone. This means, the mobile web-service don't need a PC at all.
<scribe> ACTION: steph to write accessiblity aspect in the scope fo the doc section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-mw4d-minutes.html#action04]
<kiwanja> Interesting point from Lauri - agree we should look at this
<Raphael> sounds interesting indeed
<kiwanja> A few NGO/devs are looking at mobile servers to replace laptops/netbooks
<Raphael> Mobiles are increasingly the LDCs PCs
<Raphael> I use this often ;)
<Renjish> can we map that to any existing challenge in the doc? or if missing, we add a new challenge and include this as a potential solution?
<scribe> ACTION: Lauri to send a mail about Web-server in the mobile phone. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/15-mw4d-minutes.html#action05]
<Raphael> Lauri, any example you could share?
<Adesina> Frontline SMS
<Renjish> ok
stephane: propose an extra one on june 29
<betty> ok
<Arun> June 29 fine with me
<Raphael> ok
agreed
<Raphael> thank you
<Raphael> emails can lead to the discussion page ;)
<Lauri> Raphael, please sen e-mail to me to talk more
<betty> bye
<Raphael> thank you all
<Renjish> bye
<Raphael> OK, Lauri, thanks
<Lauri> Bye