Webizen Task Force teleconference

05 Sep 2014


See also: IRC log


Veronica Thom, Coralie Mercier (koalie), Tim Holborn (mediaprophet), Jeff Jaffe, Michiel Leenaars, Brian Kardell, Armin Haller, Olle Olsson, Virginie Galindo
Ann Bassetti, Georg Rehm
Jeff Jaffe
koalie, veronica


<koaliie> Previous (2014-08-20)

<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> draft Webizen Program interest 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)

[Post-meeting clarification from mailing list:

I was thinking about the TimBL Map, which stems into the field of ‘web science’[14]. Herein, 
from technology standards points of view, works such as ontologies are changing the patterns 
of utility the W3C (communities) engage - furthering from traditional Web Languages, to more 
sophisticated forms. Within such considerations, are some thoughts around the discussion within 
NETmundial[15] and the IGF[16], surrounding access to the internet and how to support the 
majority of humanity (only a minority currently have web access); and therein,

questions in my mind around how W3C will continue to play a leadership role in maintaining 
WWW within its role, charter, etc.

Within this segment is of course, accessibility - which has jeff pointed out, includes 
accessibility standards, etc. Other areas include languages supported in learning materials 
and other resources that aid regions in accelerating adoption, localised use (i’m aussie, 
so s’s not z’s) and other forms of standards support that lower barriers to adoption.

[14] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/map/main.jpg
[15] http://new.livestream.com/wef/events/3320009
[16] https://www.youtube.com/user/igf/videos


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.)]

[Post-meeting clarification from mailing list:

Given the short timelines, and small levels of participation; it seems more than reasonable 
(quite sensible) to factor the introduction of the program as simply that - an introductory 
period. Perhaps throughout an initial phase, ‘webizens’ can work together (once the engagement 
model has been forged) to look at the opportunities and challenges, and create a critical 
path / further define activities and characteristics of the webizen models.


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?

[Post-meeting clarification from mailing list:

Offering the survey in a multi-lingual format may aid assessments of whether the W3C has sufficient 
demand as to consider supporting engagement in languages other than english. The implementation 
would need to be assessed, yet the data in terms of whether or not sufficient demand exists - is 
perhaps a good starting point to providing the necessary stats, on being able to make an educated 
decision about this sphere of characteristics for any would-be webizen program.


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 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
... checkboxes

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

[Post-meeting clarification from mailing list:

The idea was to use structured data; for example a form of tag-cloud, or linked-data resource 
that would aid with analytics. The suggestion is that the results not be known until the end of 
the survey (as not to prompt new contributors towards any particular lens) but that rather than 
using freeform text (which may be expensive / time-consuming to review) that using structured 
data, would enable a graph to be generated quickly, with respect to the results of the survey - 
enabling people to provide additional info, otherwise not covered by the survey questions 
itself. (NB; Perhaps Andrei (or kingsley) has some ideas about how this might work)


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> 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

[Post-meeting clarification from mailing list:

W3C activities (in my experience) are not as commercial as other fields. Indeed many, in the CG’s 
are spending their time at their own cost - getting involved because they feel strongly about 
something (and likely wish to contribute using the W3C IPR model, and related resources). The 
way in which this survey goes to market, will provide a philosophical engagement model - why 
should people get involved, what would they be ’donating’ towards (perhaps donating not the 
best term - yet, there is a difference between supporting a forum of technology evolution with 
a commercial organisation, vs. the way in which a person contributes and what they contribute 
towards, with/via W3C).

(ALSO: that given the scaling mandates or those sought by the world, the ability for people to 
engage and aid in fostering the growth of W3C is useful for all parties…)


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? 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

[Post-meeting clarification from mailing list:

IMHO - the webizen program provides a conduit for growth of W3C standards development related works. 
I believe it is a foundation, for an array of benefits for all would-be participants which may only 
be fostered should the program become established, provided the opportunity to grow, etc.


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?

[Post-meeting clarification from mailing list:

The cost of manufacturing and posting merchandising (i.e.: t-shirts, coffee cups, etc.) fundamentally 
eats into the fees paid, to become a member. This is less of a problem for developed nations with 
comparable economics to that of the USA, much more of a problem when considering how individuals may 
be able to leverage their webizen affiliation / membership / program participation - in other regions 
for the benefit of their communities, in WWW support. Merchandising is an important facet [17] but 
perhaps not the driving force that will aid in the success of this program.

[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webizen/2014Sep/0015.html


<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?

[Post-meeting clarification from mailing list:

Social media is an engagement model for people, that may support better identifying marketplace support 
for a webizen program - as distinct from the number of individuals who successfully complete the survey. 
It appeared to me, that the survey was the primary resource being used to identify whether or not sufficient
numbers of individuals were interested in this program; which in-turn entirely depends upon the barriers of
completing the survey, by any would-be participant.

It might be found that a bunch of people will ‘like’ a page (cause it takes a few seconds) but would rather 
wait till the program is in existence, rather than spend time filling out a survey. that said - i hope the
response for the survey is enormous!!


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 http://www.w3.org/2014/09/05-webizen-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-09-10 07:33:27 $