– DRAFT –
Why W3C? Motivational Drivers for Participation

Emily: will record this session
… this session has a presentation part and discusison par
… only the presentaiton part will be recoreded

d/par/part
… here is the session called Why W3C? Motivational Drivers for Participation
… this session will be under W3C CoC
… there will be 20 min presentation and later part is the discussion part

<DKA> Minutes doc: https://pad.w3.org/p/why-w3c-motivational

Emily: will start from whom am I
… work at the identity dept of Microsoft, which is my day job
… during evening, I do rearch on W3C as an organizaitonal system at MIT
… what was my research
… 2 methods for my paper
… literature review and semi structured interviews
… 4 frameworks used, e.g. user personas, early web philospphy, was as social good, and Game tho
… Why study W3C?
… think W3C interesting as a member org
… comparing W3C with peer orgs such as IETF and WHATWG
… the first framework is about users
… it requires a memership to participate

<igarashi> is IETF rolarity free?

Emily: users could be developers, employees of W3C members, or end users
… these 3 personas influnce contribution
… impossible to separate these with affiliations, memberships, personal interests
… about philosophy of the web as the 2nd framework, joining the frame the web drives ppl's participation
… it's non-liner, and exlorative
… the web is live and growing
… heterogeneous and accsible
… also a moral driver for particpation
… Web as social good

<DKA> https://pad.w3.org/p/why-w3c-motivational

Emily: ppl participate since the Web is for humanity
… investing in W3C standards, not only for dev work, but with more moral fact
… soemtimes it backfires ppl
… when it affect's ppl's @@1
… the next component is using the game theory
… I try to use the notion of what is the game
… some factors are needed for game, e.g goal, rules, players, and attitute
… primary playres might include broaser vendors, web developers, and W3C staff, etc
… diff players show up and benefit from diff pay offs

[Emily showing a diagram on powering players in W3C game]

Emily: broswer vendors have huge power in W3C
… not one single broswer venders, since W3C requires 2 indipenent implementations
… if the browsers decide not to make a standard, then it will not go to the developers
… and wont be fully standardized
… the implicit part is that long time players have more influces than new players
… including how to use the Process
… just becuase them have been around longer
… if one dose not have certain backgrund, hard for them to participate
… can ppl cheat in the game?

3 types of cheats
… triflers, recognize the rules but not goals
… they are using the rules of the game to block the goal, which is a single Web
… when I asked the interviews about if they can cheat in the game
… they reply as in short term, might be possible to cheat, but not for long run
… if someone cheats, in the long run, ppl won't be willing to work with you
… the role of W3C? very interesting feedback
… some assume W3C as the instituion, the arena, the referee
… some assume W3C as player, who can win
… multiple ppl view W3C as hybird role, dungeon and dragon
… there are militaions of this research
… e.g. time constraints, number of interviewers, small sample size, interviews in English
… this paper focuses on stuying the problem, not solving the problem
… do not offer what W3C should do
… this is just meant to investigate
… that leads to the discusison part of it
… what comes next
… now will stop the recording
… so ppl can engage in the discussion

[no recording actually]

mnot: are you interested in doing a PHD?

Emily: maybe
… needed a break from the Masters'

DKA: recoganize W3C as what you presented here
… have been nodding

Emily: that leads to my secondary work, what to do with it
… many long time W3Cers feel @@2

Igarashi san: I am japanese
… one question is about the license policy
… does IETF has a RF policy?
… IETF enable individual membership
… for W3C individual participation, the term web developer might be misleading
… they are the ones who implement the web standards
… e.g. Web payment, some financial companies implement W3C web payment standards, not individual developers
… in my company SONY, there are some requirements to follow W3C standards

Emily: first, IETF on paper is an open org
… there is implication about the employer of indivudual participants
… e.g. travel to IETF meeting require company support
… that is a good call
… about the payoffs, that's a gap here in the player analysis
… employees of industry sectors

Emily: one comment on zoom from Chris
… if the goal is for moral driver, does it matter what type of participants?

Niksa: for CG, does it make it easier for individual to join?

Emily: it depends on the group
… I tried to analyze all the group types listed in the Process
… for IETF, the inddiviual participation benefits from their employer

Niklas: as an individual, I have to find time and resources

<igarashi> +1 to

Niklas: think we are under representated here

Mnot: think the Game Theory works here
… as my experience in IETF echos too
… a group I chair has 50% of lawyers
… and they behave
… come to IETF and study us

Emily: I did see the work of C Young
… IETF is one of the most commonly mentioned org
… will say I try to do an org level analysis
… each group has its own dynamics
… I did not dive into each group

DKA: there are other things in W3C that are not for browsers vendors, such as digital publishing

PAC: the diff is that not all the sub groups

<igarashi> +1

PAC: the browsers is a special case
… there are very few of them
… there are other activities as well

[Emily shows prompt questions]

Igarashi san: we are looking toward the same goal, not some game
… maybe some game in some cases, but in the long run, it's not game
… everyone can win, there can be win-win-win situation

Emily: a breat point that I did not mention in the slides
… maybe more a competetive game, but a collabrative game

Igarashi san: not a game

DKA: it does not need to be a game but apply the Game Theroy

Emily: game as a model

DKA: dont agree, think this is a good model

@@4: how can W3C leverage the motivational divers?
… e.g. to help the standards to better ppl's lives, to help them find a way, to make it safe for them
… less about the tech decisions, but the fact of the decisions
… Web is social good, one wants to participate to make the world a better place
… more education for that would be good

Emily: there are many other breakout sessions related to this topic?
… thank you everyone!

Syliva: want to mention that I lead the W3C stakehold outreach TF
… the approaches mentioned here might match the research work in some universities which we work with
… there is a very clear interest to uderstand the problem and to work on solutions
… maybe we can apply diff thinkings and models as candidate solutions
… plz do your PHD on this :)

DKA: in the AB, we are doing the Process refactoring
… since you are trying to identify problems, maybe we could rationalize a bit with your research
… there are some incorrect assumptions about players, maybe we can use your help

Emily: one fun thing came out is, reading the Process Doc, understand the roles, and then interview ppl
… have some thoughts on that which might not be in my paper

Emily: I will be here all week, talk to me if you are interested

[applause for Emily in the room]