– DRAFT –
What is the value of and are the values of W3C

[discussion about recording]

[decision to not record]

Intro

tantek: Lots of discusion over the years, over previous TPAC

tantek: Wanted to bring ppl up to speed on where we are, as well as why are we doing this, why are these things important

tantek: We have one place where we have captured W3C values, and that's the CEPC

<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/

tantek: To my best knowledge, it's the only place where Membership has signed off on values

tantek: On top of that we have set of values from TAG, the Ethical Web Principles

tantek: Which are broadly agreed upon it seems, or at least have been espoused by AC's TAG reps

tantek: ...

tantek: And we also have the Vision and Principles work in the AB

<tzviya> https://github.com/WebStandardsFuture/Vision

tantek: This is in progress as well, though; not published as an AB thing yet

<tzviya> TAG Ethical Web Principles https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/

tantek: Key underscoring need here, as we transition from an organization that puts our authority and faith in a benevolent Director to one that is Membership-governed

tantek: we need a set of values made explicit so that we agree on how decisions are made

tantek: have consistency in decisions, not political

tantek: and capture some of the values that existed

tantek: and embodied in Director

tantek: ...

tantek: As we talk about transition to Legal Entity (LE), what additional value do we get from the procedural structure of W3C?

Open Discussion

<michaelchampion> https://github.com/WebStandardsFuture/Vision is the GitHub Tantek mentioned

Joshua_Koran_: Hope we ahve good conversation, as this incredibly important

Joshua_Koran_: I noticed that this year 7-points document was removed from website

Joshua_Koran_: Overlaps significantly with TAG and AB docs

<tantek> what was the URL of the 7-points document?

Joshua_Koran_: But it seems that extensibility and modularity of systems is not as prominent in the new documents

Joshua_Koran_: Didn't know if that was an intentional change that the TAG/AB are making

Joshua_Koran_: Or if ppl phrasing things differently and didn't pick up on the systems design of a decentralized modular web

Joshua_Koran_: Wanted to make it a formal decision, to move away from that as a goal

<dbaron> https://web.archive.org/web/20210507094551/http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Points/

Joshua_Koran_: Or if unintentional change, and should be corrected

<Joshua_Koran_> http://web.archive.org/web/20210507094551/http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Points

Joshua_Koran_: This is referencing a "W3C in 7 Points" document

Joshua_Koran_: When I went there this week, the page redirected somewhere else

Joshua_Koran_: I don't know why that page was removed, and if it was an intentional decision

Joshua_Koran_: Language in new docs similar, but not the same

Joshua_Koran_: and a lot of the change is around decentralization and systems and modularity, not as prominent in new casting

<tzviya> https://web.archive.org/web/20210507094551/http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Points/

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to speak to the page

Ian: This document, I believe Bert was a principal of original document

<plh> "Retired and redirected to W3C mission page https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission" as of 8 days ago

Ian: Back when I was head of marketing, we decided to de-emphasize the document

Ian: as we shifted away from XML etc.

Ian: We decided there were other resources that were more up-to-date, so deprecated the document

cwilso: From my perspective, you asked a specific question around extensibility; I think TAG has to answer that, but I don't think there has been any pull away from that

cwilso: decentralization is also in the current Vision document, don't think there's any step away from that

cwilso: Let us know what is missing

<bkardell_> I would be curious to understand what someone would feel has been lost in terms of extensibility?

cwilso: If there is anything in that document that you feel is missing, it would be helpful if you tell us about it

<AramZS> Also notable that some of the words on this page are usually assumed to mean sorta different things now. Semantic Web usually implies a different set of technologies, Decentralization now *also* usually refers to a specific set of technologies unintended by the language here I think.

cwilso: I wanted to ask before we go further, how many people have seen the Vision documeent?

<Ian> [Ian has seen the AB vision doc]

cwilso: Should things be added / changed?

<AramZS> (The 7 pts page)

Joshua_Koran_: Focusing on extensibility in part, I don't think the modularity is captured

Joshua_Koran_: Comparing language in W3C in 7 Points definition of extensibility and current definition of extensibilty

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note as an example, many interpretations of decentralizations

Joshua_Koran_: seems that modularity has been dropped

tantek: I queued to dive into decentralization part

tantek: Looking at this 7 points document, looks like an interesting piece of history

tantek: would be cool if this was available at some dated URL so that we could look at it not just on Internet Archive

<AramZS> The Cooler Web!

<Ian> (Ian notes that the document was retired in Oct 2021, but had not evolved between 2005 and 2021)

tantek: Wrt modularity, I think goal of AB was to define goal of Vision and Principles was to define values we share in operation and how we produce things

tantek: Modularity seems more like a technical goal, that should be captured by the TAG

<michaelchampion> I'd just note that the "7 points" document was last updated in 2003

tantek: Decentralization, there was a proposal for a Decentralized Interest Group that was fascinating to watch evolve

tantek: because it didn't involve anything that I consider decentralization in my area

tantek: I work in IndieWeb, trying to encourage use of Web in a decentralization

tantek: Then there was another dWeb concept

tantek: Lastly if you look at decentralization on Twitter, seems to view cryptocurrency and decentralization as synonymous

tantek: so the term is a bit fraught

<Zakim> bkardell_, you wanted to reply to chris

bkardell_: Chris had asked question about that document and also what do people think and other things in there want to discuss

<tantek> https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/281

bkardell_: want to echo thing tantek alluded to which is, if the language is interperable in many many many ways, people will interpret in many many many ways

bkardell_: That is at the root of a number of our problems, e.g. ppl actively disagree on what decentralization means

bkardell_: I often see this also with priority of constituency discussions

bkardell_: They lack an explanation that works sometimes

bkardell_: You can't get things to users if you can't get them implemented

bkardell_: and there's all kinds of things go into that

bkardell_: so need to think carefully about how we articulate these things

<dbaron> I'll comment in IRC rather than speaking to mostly just +1 tantek: decentralization tends to mean different things to different people, because it's often used by people who are concerned about a *particular* aspect of centralization. And the solutions they want often have some centralization at some other place. Some people care about decentralizing authority over who can publish or what they can call things, some care about reducing the[CUT]

<dbaron> ... large tech companies, some about reducing the power of governments.

jrosewell_: Couple points

jrosewell_: I was part of group that proposed decentralized web IG at various points

jrosewell_: work on that stopped a year ago because it became clear that a lot of those concerns were issues for vision and values

jrosewell_: and needed to merge into that

jrosewell_: the namespace conflict is extremly, it has many meanings

jrosewell_: clearly a better word is needed

jrosewell_: but a number of us feel that the concept is not well represented in the Vision and Values document

jrosewell_: might be worth rereading and ensuring it is well captured

jrosewell_: Opening question of do we see value in the procedural structure of W3C?

jrosewell_: I think yes

jrosewell_: But a lot of the work here is happening outside the W3C procedures

jrosewell_: which is a concern

jrosewell_: Chris asked about the Ethical Web Principles

jrosewell_: It basically says "be good"

jrosewell_: It's ambiguous

jrosewell_: and can be pointed to and used in different ways

<cwilso> s/??/Ethical Web/

jrosewell_: So I think vision and values have to be clear and actionable

jrosewell_: which is hard, and will take time

jrosewell_: Lastly role of architecture

<cwilso> (notes I was talking about the Vision document, not the EWP)

jrosewell_: if I take offline world, architects don't just build things, they get a commission that sets policy and purpose of the building

jrosewell_: ...

jrosewell_: Talking about principles like sustainability, beauty, etc. but the principles don't talk about purpose of building

jrosewell_: which leads to, what about policy?

<AramZS> I strongly disagree with that statement on architecture - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_architecture

jrosewell_: is values same as policy or different?

jrosewell_: If too much blurring, hard to get this nailed down

<Ian> fantasai: There was a statement about decentralization....

fantasai: there was a statement in here about defining centralization for the web that Robin Berjon sent

<Zakim> plh, you wanted to answer Chris: what about the public at large?

plh: Question from chris about document itself

plh: There were different sections strategy identity etc.

plh: Looked for purpose, and didn't see community at large there

plh: So I feel like we are getting the right set of values, but presentation is not ideal

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to respond to James: EWP are "principles of ethical web API design"; the vision document is supposed to be about the foundational principles of the W3C

plh: Unsure if we need a separate section on purpose while also having one on principles and identity

cwilso: 1st bullet point under "purpose" is "provide an open forum" i.e. provide a home for the community

cwilso: I think that's the primary purpose of W3C

plh: Not addressing concern... doesn't address interaction with public at large, which W3C also does

<Zakim> AramZS, you wanted to talk about "decentralization" and also the confusion of terms and potential role of the w3c in the other contexts.

cwilso: OK, see what you mean, thanks

AramZS: Notes on decentralization

AramZS: since I oepend issue

AramZS: difficult to define

AramZS: when defining as concept alongside other principles

AramZS: if we put users first, to care about decentralization as moving power from central entities to the users

AramZS: goal should be moving power closer to users

<Zakim> chris, you wanted to react to plh to respond to plh

AramZS: Avoiding using the word, a lot of decentralization conversations happening on the Web

AramZS: and some really interesting stuff at W3C, if don't get tangled up in confusing language

<jyasskin> "The thing you are supposed to be decentralizing is power." https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/1071554966802784256

AramZS: IndieWeb, dWeb all have interesting useful things for the community

AramZS: can identify and handle separately

<tantek> +1 jyasskin

AramZS: I am interested less in defining decentralization broadly and more about where we can look at standards arising from different atempts to decentralization

AramZS: and pick them up more actively

AramZS: I think these are intersting for future of the Web

<tzviya> vq

AramZS: and these values might help us decide which ones to interact with more actively

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to comment on work on the web happening outside of W3C (spectrum of orgs / communities)

AramZS: If looking to tes these values, might be good way to do

tantek: Comment about role W3C plays and W3C interacting with public

tantek: want to acknowledge even when W3C established, there was split between W3C and IETF
… shortly after that, JS, is done in TC39 at ECMA
… and now have WHATWG where HTML and DOM etc. are being evolved

tantek: Trend we see also decentralization of where standards themselves are developed
… I think it's a positive direction, but also W3C can't presume to speak for the Web

tantek: W3C is part of an ecology of standards

tantek: and ecology is both formal standards orgs
… and also informal, like indieweb.org

tantek: another thing we see is standards evolving from group to group, and it's OK

tantek: "purpose of decentralization is decentralizing power"

tantek: +1 to that

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about role of architects in policy

tantek: also +1 to putting power in the hands of users

tzviya: Architecture and policy, ethics, etc.

tzviya: Role of architects in many organizations is very much outside the day to day coding

tzviya: and more policy of org rather than code decisions

tzviya: What I do is standardize things, best practices, how it affects organization, how we're going to deploy this policy

<AramZS> Yeah, this is a great point. Our standards are living and therefor will be developed further outside our context. What we pick back up, what new things we pick up, and what we choose to let develop without our input is a very useful way to understand our principles in action.

tzviya: we are creating our internal policies and that's what we are doing at W3C as well

tzviya: it's not how to write a line of code, this is tools to use, how to interact with legal, etc.

tzviya: at W3C, different scale and different impact, but it is policy

tzviya: Standards are different than policy at a company which can bind things

<AramZS> +1 to Tzviya - This is how architects work with us as well, it is a technical *policy* role, policy of good practice, legal compliance, and technical system design maintenance and adherence.

tzviya: but making recommendations because we've seen that there are a lot of unforseen consequences if we pay attention

tzviya: we don't want to have the negative effects we've had in the past

Jennie: I'm new to this topic, so like the structure of the GH page that was shared

Jennie: What I'm hearing is difference of definition of certain terms

<dbaron> I have trouble telling which of the advocates for decentralization are advocating for the end of governments; many of the statements defining decentralization seem to support that. (The tweet that jyasskin quoted was followed up with https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/1071556835457417216 .)

Jennie: Cognitive and Disability sWG discusses the need for glossaries

Jennie: Working through a glossary and deciding what the words you're using mean

Jennie: recommend that a glossary be considered, to ensure that those of us reading the document closely
… understand it the way it was meant

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to respond to James: EWP are "principles of ethical web API design"; the vision document is supposed to be about the foundational principles of the W3C

<tantek> Agree that a glossary would be good!

cwilso: Thanks, I'll file that as an issue

cwilso: I wanted to respond to something jrosewell_ said about EWP and tech design

<kirkwood> +1 to a glossary

cwilso: wanted to be clear that EWP and Vision are complementary
… EWP is how we design tech
… Vision is about who we are, what we do, and what values do we bring to doing our work

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say I agree architecture shouldn´t set values, but values shape our technology and architecture should guide that

MichaelC: Reacting to who sets what guidance, thing values should be set by membership as a whole
… Values impact what we do
… from there, role of architecture guidance is to say how we meet the values

<plh> [I assume that this values document would be brought to the AC to become a W3C Statement]

<dbaron> (cwilso also ended with the statement that the EWP are an additional level of detail, relative to the Vision)

MichaelC: CEPC is not just guide for how to work together, but also the guide of what kind of world we want to live in that we want the Web to support
… and build into our technology

jrosewell_: To start with Ethical Web Principles
… if I look at the document, looking at complexity on one hand and issues like security and privacy on the other
… as an employer you want new recruits to be functioning quickly
… if we making it harder for them to become productive in the workplace by adding complexity
… or fragmenting without interop
… then takes longer to be productive
… and might lead to preference to not using the Web because one set of rules

jrosewell_: so when we think about ethical web principles
… concerned about the contradictions
… We should be clear about that, but also remove inconsistencies and ambiguity so that we can use these documents

jrosewell_: Second point is who speaks for users?

<AramZS> @dbaron I have no objection to the end of governments in theory--or at least a significant reformation of the ones we've got--but I don't think technical standards are going to lead us to that sadly, so I think that conversation is a little out of bounds in this context. But generally the way our modern political philosophy is organized is to note that power in more hands is considered *good* while the centralization of power to smaller

<AramZS> groups is considered *bad* and this is the context in which I think it's useful to work. This of course gets more complex in reality and generally that's a scale that slides depending on political affiliation.

jrosewell_: in my country it's elected government
… how do we reconcile that? how does it get reflected in the values

<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to react to jrosewell_ to respond to jrosewell_ about conflicts

fantasai: it's ok for us to have values that are sometimes in conflict

fantasai: for example and i18n and performance are often intersect

fantasai: or i18n and a11y might have a slight conflict at some time

<tzviya> +1 to fantasai

<AramZS> note: Not sure that "make labor more productive" should or needs to be our north star for constructing our values.

fantasai: it becomes a challenge for the organization to work through, but it doesn't mean we can't have those values

fantasai: working through these areas is part of our job

<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to react to jrosewell_

<Zakim> avneeshsingh, you wanted to comment on testing actionable values

<Jennie> * Thank you cwilso!

avneeshsingh: Really like plh's info that we focused a lot on the organizations but not the individuals, should correct that mistake

avneeshsingh: We talked a lot about values and many of us have a technical interpretation of the values
… at the same time, when we started this, the principles and values, these are the the reference points that we should use for decisions
… e.g. for charters, FOs, tecnical decisions
… but apart from this, it provides a guidance for the Membership
… when we recruit new Members, whether these values match, that's one purpose for these values

avneeshsingh: Intention was to make the document short, crisp, and clear
… at the same time, when making decisions need to get into more details, not just crispness
… so maybe extract the values in child document
… and have more details to help us overcome ambiguities, and help us get more clarity when making decisions
… and in the child document keep it crisp

<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask how we develop values that are 'consensus' and not unanimous?

avneeshsingh: We should look at how to clarify document and reduce ambiguity

dsinger: wrt decentralization of power, think it's important but not the only aspect
… famously Internet itself is desgined to not have a single point of failyure
… email, other services, are designed in this way
… and this is also as important as decentralization of power

dsinger: Clearly we need consortium values
… if they are unanimous values then anyone can join and veto our values

<AramZS> I do think that the situation where we have created a system where anyone can participate *is* the decentralization of power.

dsinger: so have to work out how to have rough consensus on our values without unanimity

<bkardell_> +1 to dsinger's point

dsinger: rathole not to address today, but pls talk to AB about how to balance

weiler: As I think about values particularly in other organizations like IETF
… I see them as emergent

<dsinger> +1 to Living Values! Values carved into stone are dead

weiler: they evolve over time, in response to the state of the world
… While I think it's important to talk bout our values
… recognizing as emergent

<tzviya> vq

weiler: should not use them as stop energy to prevent other work

<avneeshsingh> +1 to emergent values

<Jeff_Jaffe> +1 to Sam

stpeter: Want to talk about "who advocates for users"

stpeter: There are civil society groups

stpeter: consumer protection agencies

stpeter: We call browsers "user agents", we tend to think we advocate for users

stpeter: and we ourselves are also users

stpeter: DOn't want to limit voice of users to only what comes from government

<bkardell_> big +1 to stpeter

stpeter: don't want to get into how regulators can be compromised

<tzviya> acck EricSiow

stpeter: but while users need to be foremost in our minds, doesn't only need to come from one direction

<AramZS> +1 to stpeter

<cwilso> note that the Vision doc's top 3 core values are - The Web is for all humanity, The Web is designed for the good of its users,The Web must be safe for its users.

EricSiow: back to point fantasai raised about conflicts

<cwilso> Top principle is Put the needs of users first

EricSiow: Seeing stress fracture in org

EricSiow: We need to work on cconsensus on values

<tantek> +1 to EricSiow agreed on stress fracture happening in org

EricSiow: but fantasai raised point that there may be values that conflict

<cwilso> +1

EricSiow: raises question of how do we as a community resolve those conflicting values, or make decisions

EricSiow: One important, is consistency in how we resolve those values
… need to discuss moving forward

<Zakim> EricSiow, you wanted to ask a question about how to resolve or make decision about conflicting values raised by Elika.

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to respond to "harder to be productive" - JS toolchains? or OTOH we decided worth the work for a11y i18n and hopefully also s12y and to reply to dsinger agreed on dcnt more than just power, and also direct capability http/email vs emergent effects centralized services

tantek: jrosewell_ brought up difficulting of ggetting started with Web
… do have priority of constituencies with users first, spec authors last
… we have fairly strong consensus on that, and it guides our work
… that said, there are problems with inefficiences in platform that we are trying to make better
… e.g. OpenUI effort working on problem of massive JS frameworks just to make a pretty button

tantek: ... i18n or a11y, or even making sustainable website that doesn't consume as much electricity
… addressed by priority of constituencies
… i18n, a11y, are there to protect the user

<AramZS> +1

tantek: so it's fair to ask Web author to do more work to protect the user

<Zakim> AramZS, you wanted to talk about technical governance and government as separate paths

AramZS: responding to that, example of how we do tech architecture is good example when deciding impact of law
… law is constraint on these meetings, but we are engineers not lawyers
… so looking at this as a technical group
… Law is aconstraint, but not a means by which we organize
… if we make our legal governances the method of how we work, inevitably comes int conflict
… countries with different laws, that we agree with or disagree with
… we can't serve them all explicitly every time

<jrosewell_> So we need to define the role of laws in our values explicitly.

<cwilso> +1 to Aram

<tzviya> big +1 to AramZS

AramZS: we shouldn't make technical standards that violate those laws (that is our constraint)
… but we can't look at those laws as the architecture of our systems

<stpeter> +1 to AramZS

<Zakim> Jeff_Jaffe, you wanted to address Eric's question as an emergent property

<fantasai> +1

<jrosewell_> -1 to Aram - laws drive contracts for users and participants on the web. I know I'm a minority but don't want this to be missed.

Jeff_Jaffe: Wanted to comment on stress fractures, conflicting values and needing to work through it

Jeff_Jaffe: Eric, it's very hard to deal with it theoretically
… have to deal with these situations one by one, listen to them

<AramZS> But laws are not global and not all governments are moral or ethical jrosewell_

<AramZS> And the web *is* global

Jeff_Jaffe: when discussing values as emergent, to me what it meant is that sometimes youcan't write everything down
… have to look at the situation, real situation, and from that you develop an emergent sense of how to balance some of those conflicts

Jeff_Jaffe: ppl on this call aware that we have upcoming FOs
… hope we can convene W3C Council to address these
… a lot of them reflect differences in interpretation of values
… and resolving them could help us resolve some of these ideas

<bkardell_> it might be good to explain how we did come to terms with those and link them up when it's all done for future discussions

<AramZS> So we just can't work on a system where we are trying to *litigate*. That won't work very effectively because we'll end up fracturing ourselves into a hundred partisan groups.

dbaron: I think I agree with a lot of what AramZS said, but I also feel that one of the things that some people who are advocating for decentralization are advocating for

<kirkwood> pressent+

dbaron: is that they're advocating for removing specific powers from specific governments
… sometimes ppl disagree whether those powers are good or bad
… e.g. use of cryptocurrency in practice shows what removing some of those powers can lead to

<AramZS> To be 100% clear: a free and open web is inherently challenging to some of the functions of governance and even some specific government functions.

<tantek> strong +1 to dbaron

dbaron: but seeing that advocacy makes me hesitant to endorse the term because of the way some people use it

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to agree on EricSiow on stress fracture, similar thing happened with RF, when is it ok to lose members?

tantek: There's a lot of decentralization, stripping of power from governments etc, treated as an absolute good
… and impact in reality not the case

<AramZS> That means that the web will sometimes come in conflict with government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451

tantek: there's a conflation that removing power from current authority means it will flow in a decentralized fasion rather than having different power centralization
… sometimes this will have the effect of harming users

tantek: want to comment on stress fracture issue, last time this happened was RF Patent Policy
… and we lost Members then

<AramZS> I would love to know some of the history of that trade off?

<cwilso> +1 to Tantek

tantek: so question is when is it OK to have rough consensus and go forward, but have tradeoff of losing Members and revenue

<Joshua_Koran_> As one potential answer to Tantek's question is to examine the decision by the (foreseeable) outcomes it produces

tantek: I fear that's something that will come up again as we adopt more values and principles, which may conflict with some business models

<Jeff_Jaffe> [My answer to Tantek is that it is always OK to lose Members rather than sacrificing our values. But only after we hear all points of view about the values.]

<Zakim> EricSiow, you wanted to respond to Jeff.

<wseltzer> [to be clear, the RF patent policy still lets people charge patent royalties -- just not on essential claims in W3C specs in which they participate]

tantek: I want to assert that W3C is not here to protect any particular business model

EricSiow: I raise this issue because I'm keenly concerned about the formal objections that I'm anticipating will be escalated to the Council

<AramZS> I also agree that there are some issues with the application of types of decentralization in such a way to harm people. Once again, I think our principles as is are useful here in that the primary goal is to work on behalf of users.

EricSiow: I attended the sustainability discussion on Tuesday and heard good arguments on both sides
… as a member of the Council that will have to weigh in on some of these FOs, my concern is
… I know that in a lot of cases you are likely to make one party unhappy
… but what's important is that even if Members don't get what they want, they know and trust that the Council based decision in objective manner and consistent application of their principles
… if Members lose trust in ability of W3C to make decisions fairly, that's a major concern
… so finding guiding principles is critical

tantek: Yes, we need to keep working on these principles to keep building/preserving trust in this organization

<plh> [the Director very often hear (if not always) good arguments from both sides. that's the difficulty of playing the role of the Director]

<AramZS> Thanks all!

<cwilso> and please, file issues and participate in the discussion! We'll be refocusing on this soon.

tantek: Hopefully you know know where all the work is happening and can file issues against Vision and against EWP

<jrosewell_> One hour was optimistic. I feel there is a better understanding of the issues, but a long way from resolution. Specifically we should not maintain business models, but would should allow "winner takes all" in some business models.

tantek: Thanks everyone for coming!

<fluffy> Thanks