Meeting minutes
[Tantek introduces the session]
Pick a scribe
Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy
Goal of this session
Tantek: scope of session is to go over blocking issues
<Jem> can we have the link to the doc?
Tantek: aiming to take the document to statement, as a next step
<amy> Vision for W3C
<cwilso> https://
Discussion
tantek: we should get this in front of the advisory committee representatives for review
<amy> Issues for processing
tantek: let's go through the issues
… a few issues and one pull request
… if it's not a blocker, then it's out of scope
====
tantek: issue 126
<tantek> w3c/
<amy> smoke-testing the values... #126
Tantek: this is about how the document "holds up"
… we've done that
… heard comments from team and others that the note was used in decision making
… heard so far only positive feedback
… and that it's been incrementally helpful over not having a vision
… is there any feedback, are there any holds?
[none]
Tantek: I propose we close as complete with experience to date
<amy> no holds, my experience is positive. support closing this issue as complete
Tantek: and then understanding that if there is now information or new experience, a new issue can be open
<cwilso> PROPOSAL: We should close this issue (#126) as we have smoke-tested the Vision values and believe they are solid enough to provide guidance. We may open new issues in the future.
[people prepare to +1/-1/0 while the proposal is being typed up]
<tantek> +1
<fantasai> +1
<amy> +1
<gendler> +1
<dsinger> +1
<koalie> +1
<cwilso> +1
dsinger: that doesn't mean smoke testing should stop, right?
Tantek: correct
gendler: I don't think anyone's intention is to not change the vision ever
… we want to build on
… if we missed something
… the document can change
… we are in a good place now
… the AC deserves to vote on it
<tantek> +1 gendler
dsinger: +1 to that
… you need to have a living document
EricSiow: +1
… you have to adjust to your conditions
RESOLUTION: We should close this issue (#126) as we have smoke-tested the Vision values and believe they are solid enough to provide guidance. We may open new issues in the future.
====
supports truth over falsehood may read like censorship #113
tantek: we iterated a bit since that issue was filed
… statement blocker given apparent lack of consensus at the time, almost a year ago
… I believe the current vision has a good faith effort at resolving this
<amy> "facts over falsehoods"
tantek: we dropped "truth"
… now using "facts over falshoods"
cwilso: the best thing to do with this issue is that it's not needed for statement
… we should keep it open
… and continue to think about alignment with other principle documents
… aiming for better alignment
… I don't think further changes are needed
gregwhitworth: what does statements mean?
cwilso: groups who can not issue Recommendations can issue statements
… that have AC endorsement
… we did this for privacy and ethical principles from the TAG
<amy> Types of documents W3C publishes
gregwhitworth: I agree with what cwilso said then
<amy> [[2.5.3 Statements
<amy> A W3C Statement is a document produced by a W3C Working Group, a W3C Interest Group, the Advisory Board (AB), or the W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG). A W3C Statement is a W3C Technical Report.
<amy> A Statement is to provide a stable reference for a document that is not intended to be a formal standard. These statements have been formally reviewed and are endorsed W3C.
<amy> These statements MAY be cited as W3C statements.
<amy> W3C Statements should not contain implementable technology.
<amy> There are no patent protection covering the implementations of the W3C Statement.
<amy> ]]
tantek: I don't like issues that never close
… not good issue tracking practice
… I'd propose we close this as completed
… while indicating while closing it that there is worth raising other issues
gregwhitworth: comments can be turned into separate issues
… maybe you take the action
<Jem> +1 gregwhitworth
<amy> +1 to gregwhitworth
[people prepare to vote +1/-1/0]
<tantek> PROPOSED: Close issue 113 as resolved as originally filed, and open a new non-statement-blocker issue forking from relevant comment in summary: "criticism is that we need to do an adversarial reading of the document, to anticipate how it will be understood and misunderstood by people outside the consortium"
<Jem> +1
<cwilso> +1
<koalie> +1
<tantek> +1
<gendler> +1
<amy> +1
<Erik> +1
RESOLUTION: Close issue 113 as resolved as originally filed, and open a new non-statement-blocker issue forking from relevant comment in summary: "criticism is that we need to do an adversarial reading of the document, to anticipate how it will be understood and misunderstood by people outside the consortium"
====
<amy> Thank contributors by name #64
tantek: I think we've done some of that
gregwhitworth: I don't think it should be a hold-up
… but I agree it's a good idea
fantasai: make sure the acks are non-negligent is a good idea
<amy> Acknowledgements
fantasai: at least make sure the major contributors are listed for publication
gendler: I would say the acks is very representative of who worked on it
cwilso: Max you've been on the TF a long time, and your name isn't on the list. is that a mistake?
gendler: No
… having thoughts and paying attention doesn't warrant putting my name
<fantasai> +1, I think that's the right level of criteria to apply
dsinger: s/including/notably/ is my suggestion
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to wonder if including "the Vision TF" might suffice if there are concerns
amy: if there are concerns, I support David's idea
<dsinger> suggest s/notably/including/
amy: otherwise I suggest "the vision task force"
<Jem> +1 to dsinger
amy: I don't think it's a blocker
<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to say that with max's verification I'm supportive of closing
tantek: I can file a PR to include "vision task force"
fantasai: with Amy's proposal and max's verification
… I feel confident closing this issue
<amy> +1 to closing
<Erik> +1
<tantek> PROPOSED: Close 64 with an editorial change to include "and the Vision Task Force" (PR expected soon)
<tantek> +1
<cwilso> +1
<gendler> +1
<song> +1
<Erik> Erik Taubeneck
<koalie> +1
<fantasai> w3c/
<fantasai> +1
RESOLUTION: Close 64 with an editorial change to include "and the Vision Task Force" (PR expected soon)
====
<amy> Be more explicit about how to improve web's "integrity" #13
tantek: This has been a high-level long-standing challenges
… to make a difference
… one of our strongest advocates has been David Singer who's here
… and requested that we advocate for a bold vision
… I think we've achieved that
… there is room for improvement
… I don't need it needs to be a blocker
dsinger: I agree
… we say core values
… and we should iterate on it in the future
<amy> +1 to seeing Integrity as a core value which we expect to iterate on in future
<cwilso> PROPOSAL: remove "Needed for statement" from issue 13, but keep it open
tantek: so remove the "needed for statement" but keep it open
gregwhitworth: I feel in general at W3C that there needs to be key goals towards vision, mission, ethics, etc., that we try to achieve against
… it's a separate process
… and how are you going to track it
… so I recommend closing it
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to greg
gregwhitworth: I feel that what's in the vision is great
… but no way to measure anything yet
… so another process is needed
ErikTaubeneck: I'm new to this
… "integrity" is used twice
… this isn't clear how to get to the how
… what is it that is meant by that
tantek: could you open a new issue?
<Jem> I would like to use "a Vision is supposed to create a mental image of what a future web with more "integrity" would be like, and give the reader some plausible reason to believe the vision is achievable. "
tantek: did you intend it as a stateent blocker
<Zakim> Jem, you wanted to address the disagreement by Greg
Erik: no
Jemma: I may miss some context as I'm new
… but mission should "mentor"
… in a vision, "integrity" is essential to have
… that's my different opinion
<Jem> "a Vision is supposed to create a mental image of what a future web with more "integrity" would be like, and give the reader some plausible reason to believe the vision is achievable."
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to Jem
tantek: Jemma if you want to file a "mental image" issue, please do so, or work with Erik on his
cwilso: the entire vision is supposed to be that picture of what a future web with integrity looks like
… "integrity" is a hard work to pin down
Jemma: a tangible concept unless we talk about privacy or security
tantek: I support that
<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to propose action for AB chairs and liaisons
fantasai: to the extent it's about clarifying vision, should file separate issues about specifically what needs clarifying; to the extent it's about operationalizing the realization of the vision, there is a role for strategy for Board, AB, TAG, AC need to be developing for W3C
<cwilso> +1
<Erik> +1
<tantek> +1 fantasai
fantasai: otherwise file as separate issues
… including "how to do it"
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to support Greg's suggestion to closing this but making commitments to ongoing KPIs part of the work of W3C
fantasai: which should then be copied to the AB or BoD
Amy: I wanted to support to close as blocking for statement
… but to do what David has been talking about
… if you look up integrity
… the first definition is about having principles
… which is inline with what we're doing
… so this closes the loop for me
… instead of entering the rabbit hole
<Zakim> gendler, you wanted to discuss KPIs and what is integrity
<Jem> love that "having principles"
gendler: I'm glad to hear "we can still work on things" and not hearing this is a blocker
… on KPIs
… and how to do better,
… one of the struggles we've had is to let go that this doc isn't a technical document
… greg's suggestion of time KPIs is crucial but not inside the vision
gregwhitworth: +1
gendler: I believe this is for leadership groups
… we don't have hard KPIs and that doesn't meant those can't exist
… but if you were to have ones, those would come from this or that secion
<Jem> +1 to gendler
gendler: re: 'integrity' as a word, we tied to a more technical doc
… since that's not our job and this that other doc deals with it
btsavage: 'integrity' suggests differents things and there are different parts of the document
<Jem> +1 btsavage
btsavage: 'fraud/scam/fishing' aren't clearly reflected
… is that intentional?
… which one of these three did we mean?
gendler: we were having that kind of conversation
<amy> I think that thinking of integrity as supporting facts is ok but I don't think we should tie integrity as used here to all possible associations
gendler: to address this, we tried to be more specific
… we spelled it out where needed
… so that it was clearer in specific instances
… the oeverall intent is not to be highly specific
… 'integrity' is a big word
… each of the definitions are useful
<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to distinguish operational principles section vs vision for the web
<Erik> ty
fantasai: bullet point list is about operational principles, so the concept of integrity of the Web would not be part of that list, but rather in other sections
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to btsavage to answer Ben
cwilso: 'integrity' appears only twice
… one time it's very clear
… scams and fishing, for example
… the second time it to say to rise even further
… and this can be read either way
… intended to be both
… on 'how do we operationalize combatting'? I don't think we know what to put there
… we've only started to look
… we don't have a privacy working group yet
tantek: Ben, no it wasn't intentional to not clearly reflect 'fraud/scam/fishing'
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to react to gendler to discuss is intentional that 'fraud/scam/fishing' aren't clearly reflected
<Jem> then should we create the ticket for adding integrity to "Operational Principles for W3C"?
jgraham: what I read and what I heard don't quite meet
<Jem> just curious who are the readers and audiences for this vision document.
jgraham: to me integrity is related to agency which people have
… not the Web
… I struggle to explain more that sentence given the word what is should convey
… So I prefer "principles" as Amy mentioned
tantek: we can postpone that discussion if we agree that this is not a blocker for statement
<amy> +1 to close as statement blocker (while other issues will be opened to discuss terms)
<cwilso> PROPOSAL: remove "Needed for statement" from issue 13, but keep it open
<tantek> +1
<cwilso> +1
<koalie> +1
<gendler> +1
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to talk about distant horizons
<amy> +1
<fantasai> +1 to removing "needed for statement"; rather than keeping open transfer to Board this issue (which is about operationalizing the Vision), and open new issues about ambiguities in wording
<jgraham> +1
dsinger: 100% with Max
… vision is what you're driving towards
<Jem> Thanks for great discussion, everyone.
btsavage: my favourite among the listed is the patent policy
<tantek> no objections and only support for the proposal, declaring it resolved
btsavage: I would love to see how standards should be designed to avoid abuse
RESOLUTION: remove "Needed for statement" from issue 13, but keep it open
Next steps / where discussion continues
tantek: thanks all!
… we know our next steps
[adjourned]