Breakout: What is the Future of W3C -- 18 Sep 2019

<tantek> OMW

<scribe> ScribeNick: fantasai

<koalie> mchampion, please join https://mit.webex.com/join/koalie

<koalie> or US Toll Number +1-617-324-0000

<koalie> meeting number: 649 613 453

Future of W3C

<amy> +tanya

<amy> https://w3c.github.io/tpac-breakouts/sessions.html#future

<tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas#What_is_the_Future_of_W3C

<cwilso> coralie, are you sure that's the webex?

<cwilso> Mike said he's the only one on

tantek: As some of you heard during AC meeting, there's a pretty big transition of W3C converting ot a legal entity
... as part of that a bunch of us are asking the questions of what really should be our goals with W3C, explicitly, especially towards the future
... so that we can provide that as input to how the legal entity is shaped
... because there's lots of details, ways that transition will happen
... one way would be to trust W3C Team to manage everything
... don't think that everyone wants to delegate complete authority to Team
... W3C as a culture and org and community has always been multi-stakeholder, and trying to get consensus bfore moving forward
... with something so large, seemd appropriated to ask these questions
... mchampion and I brainstormed some questions to ask
... wanted this discussion to happen a bit more publicly, because a lot of discussion has been with smaller groups so far, and not necessarily in public venuses
... whereas W3C has very broad impact on the world,Web, technology

<mchampion> but don't worry, scribing is excellent

tantek: three areas to reframe are
... what should mission be?
... how shoudl leadership work?
... how do we figure out what's the appropriate staffing model?
... lots of variable,s lots of possible paths
... we all share a desire for W3C to succeed and to thrive

<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to Note we’ve already asked (a) is a consortium the right structure, or should we incorporate. (b)

dsinger: Would note, we asked 2 big questions already
... 1) is Consortium structure right structure, or be a separate ientity
... 2) shoudl a Director-led structure better, or director-free
... but also some questions we haven't asked
... One is, we have a dues-heavy, staff-heavy consortium
... IETF is almost exact opposite
... is this the right model for next 25yrs?
... something to consider
... sensitive topic because involves real people

Travis: beign dues-collecting organization has benefitted W3C, lots of great services and good infrastructure
... this meeting, TPAC, a lot of dues help pay for this
... don't have a lot of clarity on where dues go

<amy> I note the Director issue is one being discussed in the AB

Travis: but wrt where to align on that spectrum, not going completely WHATWG no-dues would not be right answer
... at AC meeting I heard a lot fo steps taken towards transitioning to legal entity
... wonder how much is locked away and unchangeable vs what can we impact and change today , unlcear

florian: Until it happens, hasn't happened yet, so everything can change
... but already some level of consensus, difficult to re-negotiate
... if something critically wrong, we shoudl change the plan
... if something workable but could be better, and has already been validated by host universities, harder to change
... hasn't happened yet, so nothing stuck, but some amount of inertia

fantasai: most things are open atm

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment on member model v individual model

florian: 4 universities have given assent to a certain vision, can change anything, but some things more reluctance

jeff: dsinger raised question about dues-heavy, staff-heavy vs IETF
... want to describe my view, 2 questions underneath that
... IETF is not a Member organization, it's an individuals organization
... W3C is a Member organization, so lots different, e.g. patent policy structured around concept of Member
... in contrast with IETF, it's an issue
... wrt dues-heavy, staffing
... work that W3C Staff does, is work that happens IETF as well, someone does it
... so I don't think companies aren't paying less for IETF
... just paying differently
... IETF, companies consign their own employees to do that work
... here W3C staff does it through dues
... wrt locking things down, agree with Florian
... nothing irreversible has been done
... but, big loss of change is time
... W3M task force that tried to envision legal entity
... first TF was in 2015
... took 4 yrs to get this far
... if we decided to unwind every single decision and start over
... wouldn't add 4 yrs maybe, but would elongate the process
... so, make changes if important

phila: Move to legal entity could be helpful
... other I have worked for have other sources of income besides Membership
... something W3C needs to explore
... in one case, we have a product license that ppl pay for
... ODC makes money from its test metric program
... W3C .... for free
... but some other source of income would be necessary to support what authors passionate about

dbaron: One aspect of being a dues-paying organization, that has been difficult for awhile
... Membership model has influence on who is in the conversation
... there's natural involvement from browsers in large companies
... but hard for small companies
... IE model difficult to work with , admin hassle
... this is a result of the dues model
... I think having a Patent Policy that implies commitments from orgs is separate, should continue
... WHATWG has that, but doesn't have organizational membership model
... entirely detachable

cwilso: Wanted to respond to dbaron's point
... model at WHATWG, does require you to have organizational commitment if you are in an organization
... by design, don't want an individual from org to drive things without ..

dbaron: organizational IP commitment, not organizational commitment of money

cwilso: challenge for me, tantekt's original essay of goals of conversation very apt
... things most important to me are figuring out how to enable us to have
... W3C's traditional mission statemtn is [..]
... but slightly off
... W3C's role is shepherding that goal
... not guiding straight to solutiont
... solutions come from large community of people
... not one org or one individual
... but role is challening
... mechanics of consensus-building is very hard to do well, and W3C has provided value on

<koalie> "coach driving the web to its full potential" ?

cwilso: would like to see that role expand

mnot: Interesting discussion fo rme, because I spent a fair amount time at W3C, then went away, then came back recently as prospective member
... One thing my company interested in is what kind of org will be?
... When I look at the issues in W3C, I've always see 3
... one is aligned to director-free work that is ongoing, and happy with engagement there
... a lto of work, but getting attention
... host model is pretty broken, and that's being fixed
... last leg is Membership model
... that creates a lot of interesting incetives for Members
... incentives not completely aligned with best for future of Web
... ....
... You're right to bring it up, it's a sensitive topic, but important to consider what incentives

amy: Can you explain more what you mean by disconnect?

mnot: I've spent 20yrs watching W3C and IETF
... see differences in style of how work in each
... differences subtle, but important
... In the IETF, there's no Team, no Staff, only contractors for specified functions
... so admin work contracted out to secretary
... leadership for publishing standards
... ffor doing work, by body of people selected within the community
... much more community oriented approach
... for awhile I thought that the best outcome would be to take IETF model and drop into W3C
... don'tthink that's the case any more
... think it would be destructive
... but worth looking at that, and consider what happens
... when controversial thing, what happens?
... decide whether to take on new work or not? vs take on new membership
... very different than what happens at W3C
... not to cast aspersions on Team, lot of love and trust from W3C community
... but worth exploring
... companies spend about same in IETF than W3C, jeff mentioned
... as rough yardstick, pretty true
... my company sends 10 ppl to IETF
... that's a lot of money
... set out in a different way
... how that money gets used is very different
... serves contracts, creates stellar [wifi] network
... budget of IETF overall is less than W3C, although work done is much larger
... but not matter of just starting anew
... but having good discussion about role of Team and execute on functions
... and whether Membership is right model
... if have financial model that doesn't require $10 million
... that doesn't require paying money to get a vote
... changes things

amy: This notion of Membership model becoming questionable
... One value is one vote per organization

malevels playing field

amy: not question of most money, most reps in group

mnot: well worth considering
... tension
... real world, browsers have considerable amount of power
... one view of how it works
... ppl come along and ask to change products
... willing to do that
... ...
... have to be concerned about organization being controlled by one or two companies

<koalie> [Angel leaves]

mnot: WHATWG ...
... I'm never taking new work to WHATWG, because I don't have a say there
... not willing to be a serf

florian: If I understood correctly, want to agree with cwilso
... for awhile, we've been following same model
... large changes triggering us to consider future, strategy
... I don't think our strategy should be picking technical direction of Web
... shoudl emerge from consensus of the organization
... but tooling support, human support, what helps us best

cwilso: tactics

florian: should we have staff or not is not tactices
... can't change this every 3 months

<tantek> agrees with cwilso, how you spend the money is tactics

florian: it's a strategic change to W3C
... that type of consideration should dominate our strategy for being the best forum
... rather than best strategy for doing tthe best leading
... ...
... lots of discussion of "strategy" about which technology to follow, support,
... but that's not our staretgy,
... our strategy should be about being a venue
... we can't be entirely tech agnostic
... but don't think as a consortium, picking tech is not the dominant strategy

tantek: I think you're right, should be more about the venue than about assumption of leadership
... going back to three areas of discussion we set up
... 1st two, mission and leadership
... "lead web to its full potential" may have made sense 20 yrs ago, esp with timbl more actively invovled
... but no longer true, no longer actively involved
... leadership of Web doesn't happen at any one organization
... seems inaccurate at best, arrogant at worst

<Travis> Tantek is making my point.

tantek: so I put that out there as a challenge, to come up with a better mission statement for W3C
... something more accurate as of 2019, as of W3C without Tim

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment on mission statement - and "who is W3C?"

jeff: W3C mission

<amy> I note W3C is many organizations. it is a venue for many organizations to lead.

jeff: My interpretation is W3C in that sentence has always been the W3C community
... not the W3C Team
... and I hope that that interpretation of the W3C's mission statement of "lead the Web to its full potential" is shared by others
... given that, think it's fine for W3C community to aspire to lead the Web to its full potential

eric: First want to applaud leaders decided to organize this meeting
... change is always hard, always threatening to those have been doing same thing over and over for many years
... ever sicne I got onto AB, had members askin questions
... why are spinning out and becoming a new LE
... do we really need to?
... from certain perspective, it makes sense
... because of the complex structure of 4-hosts

<Ralph> [LE - Legal Entity]

eric: no clear line of accountabilitiy, employees working for 4 institutions
... from that perspective, makes sense to form LE
... but I really agree with what Tantek says
... as I was working with W3M to put together story to approch potential donors
... one feedback from Coralie and others mentioned
... the Web is no longer new thing, has been around for awhile
... want donors to fund you
... why fund you when MIT asking you to leave?
... has to be a story
... we need to figure out where this thing is going
... difficult question
... rather than figure out dues-paying heavy organization, or IETF-style
... that's next level down
... key question is what do we want this thing to be?
... on AB, sense this tension between AB members and the Team
... this is not an aspersion on Team working very hard
... this involves real humans, need to be sensitive
... but ppl working in W3C long time, this is really scary, don't know where it's going
... but we need to approach this head-on
... take all the past and throw it away
... W3C is made up of members, so we need to take charge and say, Tim is not coming back
... moving forward, what do we want this thing to be?
... let's figure that out first before figuring out struture of organization

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to say the there's organizational strategy for the W3c, but that's not the same as a strategy for the evolution and expansion of the web platform.

cwilso: Harkens back to what Florian said earlier
... 2 things to separate
... one is organizational strategy for how W3C operates
... and other strategy of how Web expands and evovles
... these always separate concerns
... but moreso
... now that deciding LE, organization strategy
... question of tie in/ competition with other platforms
... those two things need to be handled separate

mnot_: on this question, I think I agree with Jeff, current mission is fine
... could possibly tweak the word "lead" to acknowledge changes over time
... put more precision around what Web means
... ongoing discussion for decades, is it the browser web or information space web?

<cwilso> fwiw, I agree with "current mission is fine", with Jeff's caveat that this is the entire Consortium, not just the Staff.

mnot_: what I would be very concerned about is removing the Web from the mission, making it a generic venue
... we already have OASIS
... don't want to make W3C another OASIS
... need a veneue where we have shared mission, shared values

Avneesh: when I joined AB, some months ago, my question was what ispurpose of W3C?
... why doing what we're doing?
... mission statement, different ways to look at it
... W3C as W3C staff, or W3C as whole community ...
... I was not much concerned about it
... my biggest concern was, what is meant by leading to full potential
... what is the full potential?
... what is our strategy and goals
... mission statement is fine
... but how can we quantify the goal?
... take community in that direction?
... once we identify this, then it become how we can achieve oeprational efficiency, engage commnities, have different tech represented in W3C

Travis: Want to touch on what Mark was saying, I think it's really important to focus on that mission, that strategy , what it means to take Web to full potential
... concerned with move to directorlees, we lose the vision of person leading us to that potential
... now who is it? Team? Community? who is doing the leading? seems upside down to me

<tantek> (explain "spread out and distilled down that down")

Travis: maybe we should look for new luminary, a replacement for Tim
... instead of a committee

<Zakim> koalie, you wanted to pitch the "web stories" breakout in the next slot

Travis: but if committee, needs to focus on mission

koalie: I want to point, invite those interested in this room to join web stories session
... W3C Comm team wants to hear your stories

<Zakim> phila, you wanted to tak about succession

koalie: as the comm team want to tell a compelling story for the upcoming W3C "relaunch"

phila: I'm fine with Web ... WEb not just browsers
... focus on Tim leaving
... in next 4 yrs, W3C will lose a lot more than just Tim
... will lose Ralph, Jeff, Ivan, others
... many ppl will retire

<Ralph> Web Stories breakout

phila: lose a lot of depth and experience through this process
... not just Tim, and that changes

dsinger: wrt mission statement, I don't think it's perfect
... but could spend vast amounts of time fiddling with the words, and doesn't have that much impact either
... we use it in a generic way
... looking outside for a luminary is also a mistake
... don't need a sage, members join because they want to be involved

tantek: want to ask again for participation from ppl who are not Team or AB

Yves: to me, one role of the Team is also to annoy a bit the membership

<mmerrell> luminaries help with getting sponsorships

<tantek> now everyone on the queue is on the AB 😂

<cwilso> the team is doing a GREAT job

Yves: e.g. requiring horizontal reviews
... not something you may find in all organization
... Team being neutral helps that
... If we have model where all technical team is paid by Members
... and act as Invited Expert
... will they perceive the same neutrality?

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to ask how/where to continue the conversation started here

cwilso: Wanted to ask how both those leading this conversation, but everyone here, wants to continue this conersation
... don't think magically solve all problems in next 5 minutes :)

mmerrell: My first session of any sort, but feels like some task force dedicated to succession planning should be priority

amy: Major topic of the Advisory Board

mnot_: Suggest have a CG on the question
... answer future model of the organzation question, [since other two concerns covered]

<koalie> s/your teams/your "web stories"/

eric: I think need to bifurcate strategy or vision for Web and strategy or vision for W3C
... on the AB, come to realize that W3c the organiation / management team has no strategy
... sorry
... that comment hurts
... but it really hit me between the eyes
... mangement team is more involved in technical blocking and tackling, how t bring in membership, raise revenue
... if you ask mangement, in 3 yrs where will they be, no one can articulate that
... but like I said, need to split between vision for Web / org
... ifyou tackle question of vision for Web, very difficult one
... this community is made up of multiple stakeyholders
... each org has vision for the Web
... coming up with a single mission is impossible
... but from org strategy of W3C
... Tim is gone
... Web has been around awhile
... role of W3C is to facilitate the community
... bring everyone together to allow debate, work to be possible
... if you look at it that way, they you can address problem
... rather than conflate two levels of the issue

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment on venue for the discussion

jeff: Do want to comment on something earlier, what's venuse for continueing the conversation
... first, thanks Tantek for teeing up this discussion
... important,
... like forthright way it is raised
... I am happy to join community in this conversation wherever
... Lastly, to the extent that community wants AB to take up discussion, AB will arrange priorities for next year in November

<dsinger> I don’t think the AB has the brain cycles to take up a third Big Question (Legal Entity, and Director-Free being the first two)

jeff: please encourage you to find your favorite AB members to identify your topics for next year

Meeting closed.

florian: I would also like to remind ppl to reach out to AB members not just during election cycles
... having more frequent feedback from W3C community would be helpful

<tantek> fantasai++ thank you for minuting!

welcome ^_^

Overheard conversation: trust Team to be neutral on issues, less so on chartering

- DRAFT -

Breakout: What is the Future of W3C

18 Sep 2019

Attendees

Contents

Future of W3C

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output