13:52:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vision
13:52:37 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/05/25-vision-irc
13:52:37 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #vision
13:52:58 <amy> scribe: amy
13:53:01 <amy> scribenick: amy
13:53:45 <amy> agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/VisionTF/2023-05-25
13:53:56 <amy> agenda+ Review PRs Review PRs
13:54:05 <amy> agenda+ Open Issues
13:54:14 <amy> agenda+ Please agenda+ other items that you are interested in discussing
13:56:05 <cwilso> present+
13:56:15 <amy> present+
13:58:32 <wendyreid> present+
14:00:11 <gendler> gendler has joined #vision
14:00:17 <koalie> present+ Coralie
14:00:20 <gendler> present+
14:00:24 <AvneeshSingh> AvneeshSingh has joined #vision
14:00:52 <dom> dom has joined #vision
14:00:52 <AvneeshSingh> present+
14:01:27 <dom> Present+
14:01:38 <cwilso> present+ tzviya
14:01:41 <hjrchung> present+
14:01:56 <igarashi> igarashi has joined #vision
14:02:05 <igarashi> present+
14:02:17 <jrosewell> jrosewell has joined #vision
14:02:35 <amy> Tzviya: Chris and I were talking about mangaing pull requests. We were talking about whether we should actively review pull requests in this group or allow a week or so
14:02:38 <tantek> tantek has joined #vision
14:02:49 <fantasai> scribe+
14:02:51 <igarashi_> igarashi_ has joined #vision
14:02:58 <amy> ... especially if they are minor pull requests. our thinking was that we'd allow a week
14:03:03 <cwilso> q+
14:03:13 <fantasai> ... so we're going to allow a full week
14:03:17 <tzviya> ack cw
14:03:21 <fantasai> ... if there's a PR that merits group discussion, will bring back to the group
14:03:33 <fantasai> cwilso: Last time we talked through several issues, we discussed to make PRs to do X
14:03:41 <fantasai> ... so it was discussed in the group
14:03:47 <fantasai> ... it was relatively straightforward, and several ppl approved
14:03:57 <tantek> present+
14:04:08 <fantasai> ... wondering do we review each in detail, or do we leave open for a week and no comments, should I go ahead and merge instead of waiting ?
14:04:10 <florian> q+
14:04:13 <fantasai> ... This time we're going to go through them anyway
14:04:19 <Dingwei> Dingwei has joined #vision
14:04:26 <fantasai> florian: I think this is a work mode that can work reasonably well for eary stages
14:04:29 <fantasai> ... are we, is the question
14:04:34 <Dingwei> present+
14:04:48 <fantasai> ... As we become more picky about every single word, we will get to a point where we'll want to review every word
14:05:02 <fantasai> ... Going ahead and merging is fine given we talked about the changes already
14:05:12 <fantasai> ... but at some point we'll want to be tighter
14:05:19 <fantasai> tzviya: Just about PRs for things we already discussed
14:05:31 <fantasai> tzviya: Wrt calendar, we did update the calendar
14:05:37 <fantasai> ... different systems have different ways to receive new info
14:05:43 <fantasai> ... hopefully not too confusing
14:05:51 <fantasai> ... I'll mention next update in the Agenda
14:06:15 <fantasai> Topic: Reviewing Pull Requests
14:06:22 <amy> agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/VisionTF/2023-05-25
14:06:41 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pulls
14:07:06 <fantasai> cwilso: Last time we discussed, do we add implementation experience
14:07:12 <fantasai> ... I went to write the PR, had some discussion in it
14:07:13 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/79
14:07:18 <fantasai> ... we have actual wording in there that we might want to review at this point
14:07:33 <fantasai> tzviya: There's some discussion in the PR, hopefully merge painlessly
14:07:36 <tantek> reviewed the PRs async prior to the call :)
14:07:41 <fantasai> ... [reads out the text]
14:07:55 <Alan> Alan has joined #vision
14:08:12 <Alan> present+ Alan
14:08:19 <tzviya> q?
14:08:24 <tzviya> ack florian
14:08:33 <fantasai> florian: I think it's good we had discussions, end result is good, let's take it
14:08:44 <florian> +1
14:08:45 <tzviya> +1
14:08:46 <dom> +1
14:08:46 <cwilso> +1
14:08:47 <hjrchung> +1
14:08:48 <gendler> +1
14:08:49 <fantasai> +1
14:08:49 <Alan> +1
14:08:49 <AvneeshSingh> +1
14:08:49 <Dingwei> +1
14:08:51 <jrosewell> 0
14:08:52 <tantek> tantek has changed the topic to: Vision Task Force agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/VisionTF/2023-05-25. 07:00 PDT 2nd & 4th Thursdays to work on Vision (https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/tree/main/Vision)
14:08:53 <igarashi_> +1
14:08:54 <tantek> +1
14:08:54 <amy> +1
14:09:07 <koalie> +1
14:09:10 <wendyreid> +1
14:09:31 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR#79
14:09:41 <fantasai> Subtopic: SOTD
14:09:51 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/77
14:10:06 <fantasai> cwilso: We discussed and agreed that the document should have a status section
14:10:10 <fantasai> ... and this should describe what it is
14:10:20 <fantasai> ... Florian proposed text, which I slightly adapted to keep consistent with the document
14:10:24 <AvneeshSingh> q+
14:10:25 <fantasai> ... but didn't change anything significant
14:10:49 <tzviya> ack AvneeshSingh
14:10:49 <fantasai> ... tantek and Florian approved, and Dom made one comment that I fixed
14:11:00 <fantasai> AvneeshSingh: I think this is good, add at this point in time
14:11:11 <fantasai> ... at the same time, would be good to work on it and make it more crisp
14:11:20 <fantasai> ... a person gets tired reading so much
14:11:28 <fantasai> ... so if can make more crisp and short, would be nice
14:11:31 <fantasai> ... but we can approve it for now
14:11:33 <cwilso> +1
14:11:35 <fantasai> <fantasai> +1
14:11:35 <tzviya> +1
14:11:36 <tantek> +1
14:11:36 <gendler> +1
14:11:58 <tantek> +1 fantasai — put straw poll in minutes :)
14:11:59 <tzviya> Proposal: Adopt PR #77
14:12:02 <Alan> +1
14:12:02 <hjrchung> +1
14:12:02 <jrosewell> "technologies are not value neutral, and preference for or against particular technologies should be influenced by values as articulated here, " - this language is a concern but is also present else where so not unique to this PR
14:12:02 <florian> +1
14:12:04 <jrosewell> 0
14:12:04 <tantek> +1
14:12:05 <Dingwei> +1
14:12:05 <fantasai> +1
14:12:09 <amy> <amy> +1
14:12:11 <koalie> +1
14:12:12 <igarashi_> +1
14:12:18 <AvneeshSingh> +1
14:12:57 <tzviya> RESOLVED: Merge #77
14:13:14 <fantasai> i/+1 fantasai/fantasai: Can we put the polls in the minutes before voting on them, so it's clear what everyone is +1 to ? I was +1 to Avneesh's comment./
14:13:19 <fantasai> Subtopic: Sustainability
14:13:31 <fantasai> tzviya: Hopefully this PR is simple
14:13:39 <fantasai> ... [reads added text]
14:13:52 <tzviya> ack fantasai
14:14:05 <jrosewell> Would prefer to drop reference to Ethical Web Principles - "[in the Ethical Web Principles] (https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#sustainable)"
14:14:09 <tzviya> Topic: https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/78
14:14:21 <amy> fantasia: I think the PR is straightforward. there was some question about distinguishing thing things we know how to operationalize vs. not. That's definitely not happening in this PR
14:14:30 <fantasai> s/Topic:/github:/
14:14:35 <cwilso> s/Would prefer to drop reference to Ethical Web Principles - "[in the Ethical Web Principles] (https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#sustainable)"//
14:14:36 <fantasai> s/fantasia/fantasai/
14:14:37 <jrosewell> q+
14:14:38 <dom> q+
14:14:57 <tzviya> ack jrosewell
14:15:01 <fantasai> tzviya: That's worth discussing, let's see others on queue
14:15:23 <fantasai> jrosewell: The reference to Ethical Web Principles makes a link between Vision which should stand on its own
14:15:33 <fantasai> ... I think that should be avoided
14:15:33 <Dingwei> +1
14:15:33 <cwilso> q+
14:15:37 <florian> q+
14:15:38 <fantasai> ... and I also think the EWP document has problems which are outside the scope of this meeting
14:15:40 <tzviya> ack dom
14:15:45 <fantasai> ... so seems reasonable to drop the reference
14:15:59 <fantasai> dom: I registered some of my mild discomfort with the PR precisely for the reasons fantasai mentioned
14:16:21 <fantasai> ... I agree with a goal of sustainabiliity, but we don't understand as a community what it means to be sustainable, compared to international / accessible / etc.
14:17:06 <cwilso> Q- LATER
14:17:06 <tzviya> q+ to respond to dom - we don't know how to do equity either
14:17:06 <fantasai> ... We discussed last time distinguishing between things we know we want but don't know how to make happen, vs those we already know how to operationalize
14:17:06 <cwilso> q- later
14:17:06 <gendler> +1 to dom's point
14:17:07 <cwilso> +1
14:17:07 <AvneeshSingh> +1 DOM
14:17:08 <tantek> q+ to propose keeping https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/62 open for further discussion to improve per fantasai and dom's concerns
14:17:09 <tzviya> ack florian
14:17:13 <fantasai> ... I'm ok with merging as-is, but want to make sure the issue of keeping these distinct is not lost
14:17:17 <fantasai> florian: One, largely agree with Dom
14:17:21 <AvneeshSingh> q+
14:17:22 <fantasai> ... other to talk about cross-reference
14:17:33 <fantasai> ... I think it's a good thing that the documents speak to each other, not each in their own islands
14:17:40 <fantasai> ... so I think linking between them is good
14:17:47 <fantasai> ... whether that should be a normative link, I'm less sure
14:17:52 <fantasai> ... "see that document for more discussion" is fine
14:18:00 <fantasai> ... but "we care about this thing defined over there", not so sure
14:18:11 <tantek> +1 to florian
14:18:11 <tzviya> ack me
14:18:11 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to respond to dom - we don't know how to do equity either
14:18:11 <fantasai> ... I think it would be preferable to keep links informative
14:18:13 <fantasai> <fantasai> +1 to florian and dom
14:18:39 <Ralph> [Ralph joins]
14:18:42 <amy> <amy> +1 to Florian on having our documents reference each other (w/ nuance about normative dependencies)
14:18:44 <fantasai> tzviya: I'm skeptical about distinguishing, because do we really know how to do all the other things?
14:18:49 <fantasai> ... we haven't accomplished them
14:18:56 <fantasai> ... So claiming we did is difficult
14:19:01 <fantasai> ... especially areas with equity
14:19:21 <tantek> q+ to also note that these more open statements are appropriate in the context of the Vision, where they serve as an invitation to the membership to contribute towards those statements
14:19:21 <fantasai> ... So sustainability, only barely scratching surface, making all of these a combination of aspirational and operational is important
14:19:21 <tzviya> ack cwilso
14:19:32 <fantasai> cwilso: I wanted to observe that the Vision document already specifically points to EWP
14:19:39 <fantasai> ... and says it builds on these and is designed to work together with the
14:19:58 <fantasai> ... so not really new to put an expicit reference, what is new is allowing it to define what we mean by environmental sustainability
14:20:06 <fantasai> ... we could paraphrase and duplicate, but doesn't seem wise
14:20:14 <fantasai> ... we did use internationalization and accessiblity without defining
14:20:15 <tantek> vq?
14:20:24 <tzviya> ack tantek
14:20:24 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to propose keeping https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/62 open for further discussion to improve per fantasai and dom's concerns and to also note that these
14:20:24 <fantasai> ... We're not referring to those definitions elsewhere, and probably should
14:20:27 <Zakim> ... more open statements are appropriate in the context of the Vision, where they serve as an invitation to the membership to contribute towards those statements
14:20:40 <fantasai> tantek: I agree with commens from fantasai and dom and florian
14:20:42 <cwilso> qq+
14:20:47 <fantasai> ... I suggest accepting the PR but keeping the issue open
14:20:53 <fantasai> ... and to work on additional PRs to address those concerns
14:21:02 <fantasai> ... I also wanted to note that, in the context of the Vision document
14:21:14 <fantasai> ... this kind of open statement of not knowing exactly how to achieve a goal
14:21:15 <fantasai> ... is appropriate
14:21:33 <fantasai> ... That's a philosophy to adopt, because it signals and invites the membership to bring their expertise to do that
14:21:44 <fantasai> ... When we adopted accessibliity and internationalization, we weren't fully skilled at doing that
14:21:48 <fantasai> ... and have become more skilled
14:21:51 <tzviya> q?
14:21:55 <fantasai> ... so I think sustainability will follow a similar pattern
14:21:55 <tzviya> ack cw
14:21:55 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to tantek
14:22:08 <fantasai> cwilso: I really don't want us to do PRs in response to something and not have that checkpointed
14:22:15 <fantasai> ... this issue that was filed, add sustainability
14:22:31 <fantasai> ... if we do that, let's refocus issue
14:22:37 <tantek> q?
14:22:42 <fantasai> ... otherwise it seems like we didn't make progress
14:22:49 <fantasai> ... if we need these points, let's open new issues on those
14:22:57 <fantasai> ... or re-use the issue by changing it
14:23:07 <tzviya> ack AvneeshSingh
14:23:08 <fantasai> ... Otherwise it's not clear how much progress we're making
14:23:09 <fantasai> tantek: wfm
14:23:20 <fantasai> AvneeshSingh: It depends a lot when we read the document, how thigns are placed
14:23:28 <fantasai> ... Where we read [horizontal list]
14:23:36 <fantasai> ... this kind of flow creates a perception
14:23:45 <fantasai> ... Where is the horizontal review of sustainability?
14:23:54 <fantasai> ... Also we're using MUST, maybe it should be SHOULD
14:24:04 <fantasai> ... Maybe re-ordering things and using softer language can address these concerns
14:24:08 <tzviya> q+ to propose tweaking language for next time
14:24:10 <fantasai> AvneeshSingh: Also, relationship between Vision and EWP
14:24:17 <fantasai> ... of course they will not be synchronized
14:24:25 <tzviya> ack dom
14:24:29 <fantasai> ... so we have to discuss which takes precedence, especially for external audiences
14:24:40 <fantasai> dom: To your point tzviya , wasn't claiming we solved accessiblity
14:24:42 <fantasai> ... we need to work on it forever
14:24:46 <fantasai> ... but we have a very strong starting point
14:24:53 <fantasai> ... which is not for sustainability
14:24:54 <tantek> q+ to respond to AvneeshSingh — we should keep MUST, and if we want an ordering to remove any implied meaning, let's just make them alphabetical. there's work on horizontal review for sustainability, we don't have anything formal yet
14:24:59 <fantasai> ... I understand what it means to make the web accessible
14:25:38 <fantasai> ... not for what it means to make it sustainaable
14:25:38 <fantasai> ... [something about structuring aspirations]
14:25:38 <tzviya> ack tzviya
14:25:38 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to propose tweaking language for next time
14:25:38 <fantasai> tzviya: What I suggest for this issue is we work on tweaking the language for next time
14:25:50 <fantasai> ... and we had several deep links to the EWP in the past, and we previously removed those links and just have EWP reference at the end
14:25:52 <florian> q+
14:25:54 <tzviya> ack tantek
14:25:54 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to respond to AvneeshSingh — we should keep MUST, and if we want an ordering to remove any implied meaning, let's just make them alphabetical. there's work on
14:25:56 <fantasai> ... so I will suggest we do the same thing here
14:25:58 <fantasai> <fantasai> +1
14:25:58 <Zakim> ... horizontal review for sustainability, we don't have anything formal yet
14:26:18 <fantasai> tantek: We have other documents that are more well established that have these kinds of deep links, so I don't think we need to remove
14:26:23 <fantasai> ... I think they add clarity to what we're doing
14:26:38 <fantasai> ... instead of going to end of document and going to the resource and then dig through that entire documen
14:26:43 <fantasai> ... will push back on that
14:26:46 <jrosewell> q+
14:26:48 <fantasai> ... e.g. Process deep links into documents
14:26:56 <fantasai> tantek: Wrt downgrading from MUST ot SHOULD, I disagree
14:27:07 <fantasai> ... this is where we state the core values of W3C, and we need to be firm about that
14:27:14 <fantasai> ... let's not be wishy-washy
14:27:27 <fantasai> ... If we're concerned about order, then let's pick alphabetical so it's clearly lexical rather than semantic
14:27:40 <fantasai> ... Wrt horizontal review for sustainability, we don't have a formal process now
14:27:48 <fantasai> ... we have folks looking into it in Sustainability CG
14:27:54 <fantasai> ... and we have some comments on some documents
14:28:00 <fantasai> ... We don't have anything formal, but nor do we have zero
14:28:16 <fantasai> ... Intention of document is to identify the values that drive us to have horizontal review
14:28:19 <fantasai> ... not vice versa
14:28:26 <tzviya> ack florian
14:28:27 <fantasai> ... It doesn't need to wait for other documents, it's the Vision, it has to come first
14:28:44 <fantasai> florian: I would be OK to iterate, but also OK to merge with working further
14:28:50 <fantasai> ... we're not adopting this document tomorrow
14:28:55 <fantasai> ... and PRs on top of PRs is not great
14:28:58 <tantek> +1 florian
14:29:02 <fantasai> ... so let's not keep on side burner for too long
14:29:07 <tzviya> ack jrosewell
14:29:17 <fantasai> jrosewell: Wrt relationship between documents, it's hard to follow what's going on between documents
14:29:25 <fantasai> ... so I don't agree the Process is easy to unpack
14:29:30 <dom> [I've filed https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/82 ]
14:29:38 <fantasai> ... in relation to this document, it's the overaching Vision fo W3C, so it should stand on its own
14:29:41 <fantasai> ... marketing materials, etc.
14:29:48 <fantasai> ... it needs to be short, succinct, and easy to understand
14:29:53 <fantasai> ... so relying on other documents is not good
14:29:56 <cwilso> q+
14:29:56 <fantasai> ... another reason to remove those links
14:29:59 <tzviya> ack cw
14:30:08 <fantasai> <fantasai> +1, and agree with making the reference informative if it stays
14:30:18 <fantasai> cwilso: I'm unclear, because I can see multiple paths
14:30:29 <fantasai> ... 1. Include definition of sustainability in this document
14:30:36 <florian> q+ to give my preference to Chris's question
14:30:49 <fantasai> ... 2. Leave definition to EWP ; and to be clear this is built on EWP, and relies on their definitions, just this one is less well understood
14:30:55 <tantek> q?
14:31:06 <fantasai> ... In keeping with keep it succinct and crisp, don't want to fully define here
14:31:08 <tzviya> q+ to not define
14:31:15 <jrosewell> q+
14:31:24 <fantasai> ... I'm happy to do either as editor, need some guidance
14:31:26 <tzviya> ack florian
14:31:26 <Zakim> florian, you wanted to give my preference to Chris's question
14:31:42 <amy> I note our documents of many types, Recommendations, Notes, press, etc frequently link to other documents
14:31:51 <fantasai> florian: My recommendation is to merge as-is and tweak, and tweak I hope for is to have a very succinct definition, and link for futher info
14:31:56 <tzviya> ack tz
14:31:56 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to not define
14:31:59 <fantasai> ... so don't rely on link to *be* the definition
14:32:00 <cwilso> +1
14:32:09 <fantasai> tzviya: I would merge, not define it, we don't define privacy for example
14:32:15 <fantasai> ... just say "environmentally sustainable"
14:32:22 <tzviya> ack fantasai
14:32:22 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to ask what's difference between a11y and sustainability here
14:32:27 <fantasai> ... we can assume people know what those words mean
14:32:42 <tantek> +1 tzviya
14:32:59 <tzviya> q?
14:33:01 <tantek> +1 fantasai
14:33:02 <tantek> q+ to say merge and if folks want to discuss use of EWP reference in general, file another issue for that
14:33:03 <tzviya> ack jrosewell
14:33:09 <amy> fantasai: I was going to say the same thing as Tzviya. I don't see why this is different than accessibility. we know what it means but for those outside, it's maybe less understnadlbe than sustainability
14:33:15 <tantek> +1 fantasai
14:33:17 <amy> s/understnadlbe/understandable
14:33:25 <fantasai> jrosewell: I woudl agree with Florian
14:33:29 <fantasai> ... go ahead and address it later
14:33:37 <amy> s/woudl/would
14:33:42 <fantasai> ... wrt what we mean by certain terms, I think we're better referencing authoritative bodies than our own
14:33:50 <tzviya> ack tantek
14:33:50 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to say merge and if folks want to discuss use of EWP reference in general, file another issue for that
14:33:51 <fantasai> ... e.g. we could reference sustainability define by UN
14:33:56 <fantasai> ... but that's an issue for another day
14:34:02 <fantasai> tantek: 100% agree with what fantasai said
14:34:05 <tzviya> zakim, close the queue
14:34:06 <Zakim> ok, tzviya, the speaker queue is closed
14:34:14 <fantasai> ... if we want to discuss references to EWP, tweaking to informative or other
14:34:18 <fantasai> ... but I think it should be a separate issue
14:34:30 <cwilso> q+ to propose: merge; file new issue to improve definition, tweaking text, hopefully removing reference and explaining sustainability.
14:34:30 <fantasai> ... but for this PR and this issue, I'm aligned with what cwilso proposed
14:34:35 <fantasai> ... We're open to folks opening new issues
14:34:43 <florian> q?
14:34:53 <fantasai> tzviya: We have no references except at the end but go open issues
14:35:06 <tantek> q+
14:35:07 <fantasai> cwilso: So I should merge this now, file a new issue to improve definition of environmental sustainability
14:35:13 <fantasai> ... and add references
14:35:45 <cwilso> POLL: merge; file new issue to improve definition, tweaking text, hopefully removing reference and explaining sustainability.
14:35:48 <florian> +1
14:35:50 <tantek> +1
14:35:53 <cwilso> +1
14:35:56 <hjrchung> +1
14:35:57 <dom> +1
14:36:00 <jrosewell> +1
14:36:01 <igarashi_> +1
14:36:02 <Alan> +1
14:36:02 <Dingwei> +1
14:36:03 <amy> <amy> +1
14:36:04 <fantasai> -1 but not blocking
14:36:05 <AvneeshSingh> +1
14:36:07 <koalie> +1
14:36:12 <tzviya> +1
14:36:13 <tantek> for the record, merge in this poll refers to https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/78
14:37:17 <fantasai> fantasai: I think since we have concerns about references, we can remove line 78 and add reference later
14:37:26 <fantasai> RESOLVED: merge #78
14:37:36 <fantasai> Topic: Open Issues
14:38:00 <fantasai> Subtopic: Centralization
14:38:01 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/11
14:38:02 <amy> Clarify Centralization https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/11
14:38:07 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/11
14:38:09 <tzviya> zakim, open the queue
14:38:09 <Zakim> ok, tzviya, the speaker queue is open
14:38:18 <fantasai> tzviya: Centralization is a very exciting word in W3C wrt decentralization
14:38:35 <fantasai> ... in current version of the code we have "aim to reduce centralization ... single points of control"
14:38:54 <fantasai> ... in the old version in the repo, mnot had commented on this and suggested rewordings that were lengthy
14:38:54 <tantek> q+ to note there’s not been a lot of discussion in the issue — it's not clear we have anything to sync discuss, propose postponing until we have a proposal to move it forward
14:38:54 <fantasai> ... there was good discussion
14:39:09 <fantasai> ... dsinger had some suggestions
14:39:15 <fantasai> ... [tzviya reads from old issue]
14:39:37 <cwilso> q+ to respond to Tantek
14:39:39 <tzviya> ack tantek
14:39:39 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note there’s not been a lot of discussion in the issue — it's not clear we have anything to sync discuss, propose postponing until we have a proposal to
14:39:42 <Zakim> ... move it forward
14:39:45 <fantasai> -> https://github.com/WebStandardsFuture/Vision/issues/27
14:39:54 <fantasai> tantek: I do think this can be improved
14:40:01 <fantasai> ... I also don't see a proposal in the issue for moving forward
14:40:10 <fantasai> ... so maybe this is a meta-comment wrt how we spend our sync time
14:40:20 <tzviya> ack cw
14:40:20 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to respond to Tantek
14:40:22 <fantasai> ... I propose we defer until we have something more concrete to discuss
14:40:28 <fantasai> cwilso: Wasn't intended to be brainstorming
14:40:35 <fantasai> ... we did a change here, is it enough to resolve the issue
14:40:39 <fantasai> ... original issue was old, in previous system
14:40:43 <fantasai> ... mnot had filed it March 2021
14:40:50 <dom> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/51/files
14:40:51 <fantasai> ... and we did change around what we said here fairly substantially
14:40:59 <florian> q?
14:41:08 <fantasai> ... I'm not clear if we still need to add to this principle, if it needs more detail, or what direction to go if not
14:41:17 <florian> q+ to suggest closing
14:41:18 <fantasai> ... Do we close issue, do we open more issues, do we need something in this issue
14:41:27 <tantek> q?
14:41:28 <fantasai> ... if waiting for something or not
14:41:29 <tzviya> q+ to say that we need comment from mnot
14:41:39 <tzviya> ack florian
14:41:39 <Zakim> florian, you wanted to suggest closing
14:41:41 <fantasai> ... question is, what is this blocked on? I can't tell
14:41:50 <fantasai> florian: I think meta issues that say "we should do better" are not helpful
14:41:52 <tantek> q+ to then propose closing issue as handled and invite more specific issues for specific concerns
14:41:52 <fantasai> ... we have a statement
14:42:07 <fantasai> ... I think we should close this. Not that we can't improve, but if we desire improvements let's file more specific issues about them
14:42:10 <tantek> q-
14:42:11 <fantasai> ... this issue isn't helping us
14:42:28 <fantasai> tzviya: I don't think we can close without confirmation from mnt
14:42:29 <tantek> +1 florian proposal. propose to close in the issue accordingly and await review from mnot
14:42:33 <fantasai> s/mnt/mnot/
14:42:54 <tzviya> ack me
14:42:54 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to say that we need comment from mnot
14:42:56 <fantasai> tzviya: I will tag mnot and ask him if we can close or if he wants something specific
14:43:15 <florian> q+
14:43:18 <fantasai> ACTION: tzviya ping mnot about issue #11 and what to do next
14:43:42 <fantasai> florian: I'm not against that, but a little more definitive: Mark the issue for closing and ask if he's ok with it, Commenter Response Pending, that type of labelling
14:43:48 <fantasai> ... we do seem to have agreement here that we're done here
14:43:51 <tantek> +1 florian — record group leaning towards closing
14:44:19 <fantasai> florian: practice is to mark the issue as closed or propose to close, and ask the commenter for confirmation
14:44:25 <fantasai> ... rather than leaving it as if it is a brand new open topic
14:44:57 <fantasai> fantasai: Tzviya can add Propose to Close and post a comment to mnot asking for confirmation
14:45:06 <fantasai> tantek: +1 to this work mode
14:45:06 <jrosewell> q+
14:45:15 <cwilso> ack fl
14:45:22 <cwilso> ack jr
14:45:44 <fantasai> jrosewell: Changing from "reduce centralize" to using "decentralized architecture" would shorten the sentence
14:45:47 <fantasai> ... might be worth another iteration
14:45:58 <fantasai> ... considering a lot of discussion around decentralized web wg
14:46:02 <fantasai> ... see how that applies here
14:46:07 <tantek> q+ to -1 "decentralized architecture" because of the ambiguties it introduces
14:46:25 <fantasai> tzviya: IIRC we wanted to avoid the term "decentralized" because it has taken on a lot of meaning, and means different things to different groups
14:46:27 <tzviya> ack tantek
14:46:27 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to -1 "decentralized architecture" because of the ambiguties it introduces
14:46:30 <cwilso> q+ to explain wording
14:46:41 <fantasai> tantek: as someone who has worked on decentralization for a decade or so,
14:46:51 <dom> [mnot's document has a definition: https://mnot.github.io/avoiding-internet-centralization/draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization.html#name-decentralization a condition when "complete reliance upon a single point is not always required."]
14:46:53 <fantasai> ... the discussion you cite illustrates how different ppl mean very different things by "decentralization"
14:47:10 <jrosewell> q+
14:47:11 <tzviya> ack cw
14:47:11 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to explain wording
14:47:13 <fantasai> ... so changing this would add ambiguity and create something that means very different things to different people
14:47:16 <fantasai> <fantasai> +1
14:47:31 <fantasai> cwilso: reason we ended up where we are with this language (and not particularly tied to this language)
14:47:43 <fantasai> ... is we're focused on the problems, and defining the problems, and setting the general course of what we're trying to do
14:47:48 <fantasai> ... rather than the tools we're using to d othem
14:47:50 <florian> q+
14:47:51 <tantek> +1 cwilso
14:48:01 <fantasai> ... define the aim, reduce centralization and single poitns of failing
14:48:14 <fantasai> ... rather than saying "use decentralized architecture" as a solution
14:48:19 <fantasai> ... wanted to be problem focused
14:48:23 <fantasai> <fantasai> +1 cwilso
14:48:23 <tzviya> ack jr
14:48:40 <fantasai> jrosewell: Seems like avoiding that word entirely is sensible, so how about simply minimize single points of failure and control?
14:48:52 <fantasai> cwilso: I'm not sure what ... that seems overly terse
14:48:52 <tantek> q?
14:48:53 <tantek> q+
14:48:56 <fantasai> ... not sure it's translatable
14:49:02 <fantasai> ... this seems osmething we should iterate on in the issue
14:49:07 <tzviya> ack fl
14:49:24 <fantasai> florian: I see that you're trying to propose rephrasing , but problem statement you're trying to address isn't stated
14:49:34 <fantasai> ... we have something here, I will re-iterate we shoudl close this issue
14:49:42 <tantek> q+ to note reducing centralization better helps make incremental progress, SPOFs are only one form of centralization
14:49:45 <tzviya> +1 florian
14:49:46 <cwilso> +1 Florian
14:49:51 <tantek> +1 fantasai
14:49:52 <fantasai> ... open separate issues to say what you think is wrong withe current wording, and then we can propose solutions to fix that
14:49:54 <tantek> +1 florian
14:50:00 <tzviya> ack tantek
14:50:00 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note reducing centralization better helps make incremental progress, SPOFs are only one form of centralization
14:50:04 <fantasai> ... open specific issues about specific problems with the phrasing, and then work to solve those
14:50:11 <fantasai> tantek: ? is only one form of centralization
14:50:30 <fantasai> ... don't disagree that we want to remove single points of failure, but there are other forms of centralization that are also bad
14:50:37 <tzviya> s/?/Single Point of Failure
14:50:42 <fantasai> ... so keeping the first prhasing helps us address the larger set of problems
14:50:58 <fantasai> tzviya: I think we can move on
14:51:11 <fantasai> Subtopic: Should this be multiple documents?
14:51:17 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/74
14:51:32 <AvneeshSingh> q+
14:51:39 <fantasai> tzviya: [summarizes issue]
14:51:48 <fantasai> tzviya: Proposal here is to split the document
14:51:56 <tantek> q?
14:52:02 <fantasai> ... we've gone back and forth how to divide these, should this be one document or multiple
14:52:04 <tzviya> ack AvneeshSingh
14:52:05 <fantasai> ... we need a decision
14:52:12 <fantasai> AvneeshSingh: I need to drop off, so,
14:52:16 <fantasai> AvneeshSingh: splitting document or not
14:52:24 <fantasai> ... One is to have a ? document and operational document, that's fine
14:52:35 <tantek> s/?/aspirational
14:52:37 <fantasai> ... but splitting into Vision of W3C for the WEb, and one is Misison of W3C as an organization
14:52:40 <fantasai> ... that will not go well
14:52:51 <tzviya> q+
14:52:57 <fantasai> ... if I'm an officer, I would like to see not just vision of W3C for the Web, but also how W3C fits into that vision
14:53:01 <tantek> +1 AvneeshSingh exactly what I was going to say, on both points
14:53:04 <tzviya> ack me
14:53:04 <fantasai> ... Operationalizing can be a separate document
14:53:07 <fantasai> <fantasai> +1
14:53:10 <hjrchung> +1 Avneesh
14:53:14 <cwilso> +!
14:53:14 <fantasai> tzviya: I agree it's good to keep these two pieces together
14:53:17 <cwilso> +1
14:53:23 <tzviya> q?
14:53:24 <tantek> q?
14:53:24 <cwilso> s/+!//
14:53:25 <koalie> +1
14:53:26 <Alan> +1
14:53:29 <amy> +1 to Avneesh re: making sure to keep the vision and the purpose of W3C together
14:53:31 <Dingwei> +1
14:53:33 <fantasai> ... We've discussed documenting how to do these as a separate document
14:53:41 <tantek> q+ to propose closing without action
14:53:43 <fantasai> tzviya: I'm seeing a lot of +1
14:53:46 <tzviya> ack tantek
14:53:46 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to propose closing without action
14:54:06 <fantasai> tantek: Propose closing this issue without change
14:54:08 <florian> +1
14:54:18 <cwilso> POLL: Close this issue without change
14:54:20 <fantasai> POLL: Keep these two pieces together; close issue no change
14:54:24 <hjrchung> +1
14:54:26 <florian> +1
14:54:27 <cwilso> +1
14:54:27 <tzviya> +1
14:54:27 <koalie> +1
14:54:28 <tantek> +1
14:54:28 <Dingwei> +1
14:54:28 <amy> <amy> +1
14:54:29 <igarashi_> +1
14:54:29 <fantasai> <fantasai> +1
14:54:32 <Alan> +1
14:54:34 <jrosewell> 0
14:54:34 <Ralph> +1
14:54:44 <gendler> +1
14:55:58 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/75
14:56:01 <amy> <amy> also +1 to Tzviya. I  appreciate the directive to add part of the vision to strategic objectives
14:56:03 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Keep these two pieces together; close issue 74 no change
14:56:12 <fantasai> Subtopic: Industries
14:56:18 <fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/75
14:56:53 <fantasai> tzviya: This started discussion about the word "industries" and comments are on emphasis on "diversity"
14:56:57 <fantasai> ... discussion about rewording it
14:57:20 <amy> q+ to wonder if "diverse voices" means voices from the web community
14:57:30 <fantasai> ... someone commented about demographics, but this was also about different areas of work
14:57:33 <florian> q+
14:57:38 <fantasai> ... questions about global vs industry diversity
14:57:53 <tzviya> ack amy
14:57:53 <Zakim> amy, you wanted to wonder if "diverse voices" means voices from the web community
14:57:54 <fantasai> ... [summarizes further discussion]
14:58:21 <fantasai> amy: I wonder if we remove the word diverse and changing to acknowledge different communities
14:58:28 <tantek> q?
14:58:32 <tzviya> ack florian
14:58:34 <fantasai> florian: I think we have multiple issues overlaying each other
14:58:43 <fantasai> ... if we just say "diverse" people only think of personal characteristics
14:58:50 <cwilso> q+
14:58:54 <fantasai> ... this is trying to point out that this is importnat, but also diversity in other dimensions
14:59:15 <fantasai> ... geographic, industries, industry vs academia
14:59:16 <fantasai> ... removing "diversity" from this would be a disservice
14:59:20 <tantek> +1 florian, keep diversity explicitly as a term
14:59:30 <fantasai> ... But the word "indsutry" triggers Fabien in a particular way
14:59:37 <fantasai> ... I don't have a solution, but there's multiple layers to this
14:59:38 <tzviya> ack cwilso
14:59:44 <tantek> q?
14:59:52 <fantasai> cwilso: point I was trying to get across is that the use of the word "industries" is important here
15:00:03 <fantasai> ... we have to recognize that the Web has industry on it, critical driver
15:00:08 <fantasai> ... it's important to have that word here
15:00:32 <fantasai> ... and formulation now is that there shoudl be recogniition that there are diverse voices around the world and from disfferent industry and we're trying to pull them all together
15:00:38 <koalie> thanks all
15:00:42 <fantasai> tzviya: we'll continue next time
15:00:44 <fantasai> Meeting closed
15:00:50 <Alan> Alan has left #vision
15:01:00 <Dingwei> great discussion, thanks
15:01:16 <amy> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/25-vision-minutes.html amy
15:01:39 <tzviya> rrsagent, make logs public