– Vision TF meeting –

Tzviya: Chris and I were talking about managing pull requests. We were talking about whether we should actively review pull requests in this group or allow a week or so,
… especially if they are minor pull requests. Our thinking was that we'd allow a week.
... So we're going to allow a full week
… If there's a PR that merits group discussion, will bring it back to the group.

cwilso: Last time we talked through several issues, we discussed how to make PRs to do X
… so it was discussed in the group.
… It was relatively straightforward, and several people approved.
… I am wondering do we review each in detail, or do we leave them open for a week and no comments? Should I go ahead and merge instead of waiting ?
… This time we're going to go through them anyway.

Florian: I think this is a work mode that can work reasonably well for eary stages.
… Are we, is the question.
… As we become more picky about every single word, we will get to a point where we'll want to review every word.
… Going ahead and merging is fine given we talked about the changes already
… but at some point we'll want to be tighter.

Tzviya: Just about PRs for things we already discussed.
... Wrt calendar, we did update the calendar.
… Different systems have different ways to receive new info.
… Hopefully it's not too confusing.
… I'll mention next update in the Agenda.

Reviewing Pull Requests

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pulls

cwilso: Last time we discussed do we add implementation experience.
… I went to write the PR, had some discussion in it.
... We have actual wording in there that we might want to review at this point.

<tzviya> w3c/AB-public#79

Tzviya: There's some discussion in the PR, hopefully we can merge painlessly.

<tantek> reviewed the PRs async prior to the call :)

Florian: I think it's good we had discussions. The end result is good, let's take it.

<florian> +1

<tzviya> +1

<dom> +1

<cwilso> +1

<hjrchung> +1

<gendler> +1

<fantasai> +1

<Alan> +1

<AvneeshSingh> +1

<Dingwei> +1

<jrosewell> 0

<igarashi_> +1

<tantek> +1

<amy>>+1

<koalie> +1

<wendyreid> +1

RESOLUTION: Merge PR#79

SOTD

github: w3c/AB-public#77

cwilso: We discussed and agreed that the document should have a status section
… and this should describe what it is.
… Florian proposed text, which I slightly adapted to keep consistent with the document
… but didn't change anything significant.
… Tantek and Florian approved, and Dom made one comment that I fixed.

AvneeshSingh: I think this is good to add at this point in time.
… At the same time, it would be good to work on it and make it more crisp.
… A person gets tired reading so much.
… So if we can make it more crisp and short, that would be nice.
… But we can approve it for now.

<cwilso> +1

<fantasai> +1

<tzviya> +1

<tantek> +1

<gendler> +1

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.

<tantek> +1 fantasai — put straw poll in minutes :)

<tzviya> Proposal: Adopt PR #77

<Alan> +1

<hjrchung> +1

<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

<florian> +1

<jrosewell> 0

<tantek> +1

<Dingwei> +1

<fantasai>+1

<amy> +1

<koalie> +1

<igarashi_> +1

<AvneeshSingh> +1

RESOLUTION: Merge #77

Sustainability

Tzviya: Hopefully this PR is simple.
… [reads added text]

<jrosewell> /www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#sustainable)"///www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#sustainable)"

<tzviya> github: w3c/AB-public#78

fantasai: I think the PR is straightforward. There was some question about distinguishing things we know how to operationalize vs. not. That's definitely not happening in this PR.

Tzviya: That's worth discussing, let's see others on queue.

jrosewell: The reference to Ethical Web Principles makes a link between Vision which should stand on its own.
… I think that should be avoided.
... And I also think the EWP document has problems which are outside the scope of this meeting,
… so it  seems reasonable to drop the reference.

<Dingwei> +1

Dom: I registered some of my mild discomfort with the PR precisely for the reasons fantasai mentioned.
… 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.
… 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.
... I'm ok with merging as-is, but want to make sure the issue of keeping these distinct is not lost.

<gendler> +1 to dom's point

<cwilso> +1

<AvneeshSingh> +1 DOM

Florian: One, I largely agree with Dom.
… I also wanted to talk about cross-referencing.
… I think it's a good thing that the documents speak to each other, not each in their own islands
… So I think linking between them is good.
… Whether that should be a normative link, I'm less sure.
… "See that document for more discussion" is fine.
… But "we care about this thing defined over there", not so sure.
... I think it would be preferable to keep links informative.

<tantek> +1 to florian

<fantasai> +1 to florian and dom

<Ralph> [Ralph joins]

<amy> +1 to Florian on having our documents reference each other (w/ nuance about normative dependencies)

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to respond to dom - we don't know how to do equity either

Tzviya: I'm skeptical about distinguishing, because do we really know how to do all the other things?
… We haven't accomplished them.
… So claiming we did is difficult.
… Especially areas like equity.
… So for sustainability, we are only barely scratching surface, making all of these a combination of aspirational and operational is important.

cwilso: I wanted to observe that the Vision document already specifically points to EWP
… and says it builds on these and is designed to work together with them.
… So its not really new to put an expicit reference. What is new is allowing it to define what we mean by environmental sustainability.
… We could paraphrase and duplicate, but it doesn't seem wise.
… We did use internationalization and accessiblity without defining.
... We're not referring to those definitions elsewhere, and probably should.

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to propose keeping w3c/AB-public#62 open for further discussion to improve per fantasai and dom's concerns and 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

Tantek: I agree with comments from fantasai and Dom and Florian.
… I suggest accepting the PR but keeping the issue open.
… And to work on additional PRs to address those concerns.
… I also wanted to note that, in the context of the Vision document
… this kind of open statement of not knowing exactly how to achieve a goal
… is appropriate.
… That's a philosophy to adopt, because it signals and invites the membership to bring their expertise to do that.
… When we adopted accessibliity and internationalization, we weren't fully skilled at doing that
… and have become more skilled.
… So I think sustainability will follow a similar pattern.

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to tantek

cwilso: I really don't want us to do PRs in response to something and not have that checkpointed.
… This issue that was filed, add sustainability,
… if we do that, let's refocus the issue.
… Otherwise it seems like we didn't make progress.
… If we need these points, let's open new issues on those
… or re-use the issue by changing it.
… Otherwise it's not clear how much progress we're making.

Tantek: wfm

AvneeshSingh: It depends a lot when we read the document, how things are placed.
… Where we read [horizontal list]
… this kind of flow creates a perception.
… Where is the horizontal review of sustainability?
… Also we're using MUST, maybe it should be SHOULD.
… Maybe re-ordering things and using softer language can address these concerns.
... Also, the relationship between Vision and EWP,
… of course they will not be synchronized.
… So we have to discuss which takes precedence, especially for external audiences.

Dom: To your point Tzviya, I wasn't claiming we solved accessiblity.
… We need to work on it forever
… but we have a very strong starting point.
… Which is not the case for sustainability.
… I understand what it means to make the web accessible but
… not for what it means to make it sustainaable.
… [something about structuring aspirations]

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to propose tweaking language for next time

Tzviya: What I suggest for this issue is we work on tweaking the language for next time.
… 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.

<fantasai> +1

<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 horizontal review for sustainability, we don't have anything formal yet

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 them.
… I think they add clarity to what we're doing.
… Instead of going to the end of document and going to the resource and then digging through that entire document,
… will push back on that.
… e.g. Process deep links into documents.
... Wrt downgrading from MUST ot SHOULD, I disagree.
… This is where we state the core values of W3C, and we need to be firm about that.
… Let's not be wishy-washy.
… If we're concerned about order, then let's pick alphabetical so it's clearly lexical rather than semantic.
… Wrt horizontal review for sustainability, we don't have a formal process now.
… We have folks looking into it in the Sustainability CG
… and we have some comments on some documents.
… We don't have anything formal, but nor do we have zero.
… The intention of the document is to identify the values that drive us to have horizontal review
… not vice versa.
… It doesn't need to wait for other documents, it's the Vision, it has to come first.

Florian: I would be OK to iterate, but also OK to merge with working further.
… We're not adopting this document tomorrow
… and PRs on top of PRs is not great.
... So let's not keep on side burner for too long.

<tantek> +1 florian

jrosewell: Wrt relationship between documents, it's hard to follow what's going on between documents
… so I don't agree the Process is easy to unpack.
...In relation to this document, it's the overaching Vision for W3C, so it should stand on its own,
… marketing materials, etc.
… It needs to be short, succinct, and easy to understand.
… So relying on other documents is not good.
… It's another reason to remove those links.

<dom> [I've filed w3c/AB-public#82 ]

<fantasai> +1, and agree with making the reference informative if it stays

cwilso: I'm unclear, because I can see multiple paths.
… 1. Include definition of sustainability in this document
… 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.
… In keeping with keep it succinct and crisp, I don't want to fully define it here.
… I'm happy to do either as editor, need some guidance.

<amy>>I note our documents of many types, Recommendations, Notes, press, etc frequently link to other documents

<Zakim> florian, you wanted to give my preference to Chris's question

Florian: My recommendation is to merge as-is and tweak. I hope to have a very succinct definition, and link for futher info
... so we don't rely on link to *be* the definition.

<cwilso> +1

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to not define

Tzviya: I would merge, not define it. We don't define privacy for example.
… We could just say "environmentally sustainable."
... We can assume people know what those words mean.

<tantek> +1 tzviya

<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to ask what's difference between a11y and sustainability here

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 understandable than sustainability.

<tantek> +1 fantasai

jrosewell: I would agree with Florian,
… go ahead and address it later.
… Wrt what we mean by certain terms, I think we're better referencing authoritative bodies than our own.
... e.g. we could reference sustainability defined by the UN,
… but that's an issue for another day.

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to say merge and if folks want to discuss use of EWP reference in general, file another issue for that

Tantek: 100% agree with what fantasai said.
… If we want to discuss references to EWP, tweaking to informative or other
… but I think it should be a separate issue.
… But for this PR and this issue, I'm aligned with what cwilso proposed.
… We're open to folks opening new issues.

Tzviya: We have no references except at the end but go open issues.

cwilso: So I should merge this now, file a new issue to improve definition of environmental sustainability
… and add references.

<cwilso> POLL: merge; file new issue to improve definition, tweaking text, hopefully removing reference and explaining sustainability.

<florian> +1

<tantek> +1

<cwilso> +1

<hjrchung> +1

<dom> +1

<jrosewell> +1

<igarashi_> +1

<Alan> +1

<Dingwei> +1

<amy> +1

<fantasai> -1 but not blocking

<AvneeshSingh> +1

<koalie> +1

<tzviya> +1

<tantek> for the record, merge in this poll refers to w3c/AB-public#78

fantasai: I think since we have concerns about references, we can remove line 78 and add reference later.

RESOLUTION: merge #78

Open Issues

Centralization

<tzviya> w3c/AB-public#11

Clarify Centralization w3c/AB-public#11

github: w3c/AB-public#11

Tzviya: Centralization is a very exciting word in W3C wrt decentralization.
… In the current version of the code we have "aim to reduce centralization ... single points of control."
… In the old version in the repo, mnot had commented on this and suggested rewordings that were lengthy.
… There was good discussion.
… dsinger had some suggestions.
… [tzviya reads from old issue]

WebStandardsFuture/Vision#27

<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 move it forward

Tantek: I do think this can be improved.
… I also don't see a proposal in the issue for moving forward.
… So maybe this is a meta-comment wrt how we spend our sync time.
... I propose we defer until we have something more concrete to discuss.

<dom> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/51/files

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to respond to Tantek

cwilso:  This wasn't intended to be brainstorming.
… We did a change here, is it enough to resolve the issue?
… The original issue was old, in the previous system.
… mnot had filed it March 2021.
... And we did change around what we said here fairly substantially.
… 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.
… Do we close issue, do we open more issues, do we need something in this issue?
… Are we waiting for something or not?
... The question is, what is this blocked on? I can't tell.

<Zakim> florian, you wanted to suggest closing

Florian: I think meta issues that say "we should do better" are not helpful.
… We have a statement.
… 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.
… This issue isn't helping us.

<tantek> +1 florian proposal. propose to close in the issue accordingly and await review from mnot

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to say that we need comment from mnot

Tzviya: I don't think we can close without confirmation from mnot.
... I will tag mnot and ask him if we can close or if he wants something specific.

ACTION: tzviya ping mnot about issue #11 and what to do next

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.
… We do seem to have agreement here that we're done here.
... Practice is to mark the issue as closed or propose to close, and ask the commenter for confirmation.
… Rather than leaving it as if it is a brand new open topic.

<tantek> +1 florian — record group leaning towards closing

fantasai: Tzviya can add Propose to Close and post a comment to mnot asking for confirmation.

Tantek: +1 to this work mode

jrosewell: Changing from "reduce centralize" to using "decentralized architecture" would shorten the sentence.
… It might be worth another iteration
… considering a lot of discussion around the Decentralized Web WG.
… I can see how that applies here.

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.

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to -1 "decentralized architecture" because of the ambiguties it introduces

Tantek:  As someone who has worked on decentralization for a decade or so,
... the discussion you cite illustrates how different people mean very different things by "decentralization."
... So changing this would add ambiguity and create something that means very different things to different people.

<fantasai> +1

<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."]

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to explain wording

cwilso:  The reason we ended up where we are with this language (and not particularly tied to this language)
… is we're focused on the problems, and defining the problems, and setting the general course of what we're trying to do,
… rather than the tools we're using to do them.
... Define the aim, reduce centralization and single points of failing
… rather than saying "use decentralized architecture" as a solution.
… We wanted to be problem focused.

<tantek> +1 cwilso

<fantasai> +1 cwilso

jrosewell: Seems like avoiding that word entirely is sensible, so how about simply "minimize single points of failure and control"?

cwilso: I'm not sure what ... that seems overly terse.
… I'm not sure it's translatable.
… This seems something we should iterate on in the issue.

Florian: I see that you're trying to propose rephrasing, but problem statement you're trying to address isn't stated.
… We have something here, I will re-iterate we should close this issue. 
... Open a separate issues to say what you think is wrong withe current wording, and then we can propose solutions to fix that.
... Open specific issues about specific problems with the phrasing, and then work to solve those.

<tzviya> +1 florian

<cwilso> +1 Florian

<tantek> +1 fantasai

<tantek> +1 florian

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note reducing centralization better helps make incremental progress, SPOFs are only one form of centralization

Tantek: Single Point of Failure is only one form of centralization.
… I don't disagree that we want to remove single points of failure, but there are other forms of centralization that are also bad
… so keeping the first prhasing helps us address the larger set of problems.

Tzviya: I think we can move on.

Should this be multiple documents?

github: w3c/AB-public#74

Tzviya: [summarizes issue]
... The proposal here is to split the document.
… We've gone back and forth how to divide these, should this be one document or multiple?
… We need a decision.

AvneeshSingh: I need to drop off soon.
... Splitting document or not.
… One is to have a aspirational document and operational document, that's fine.
… But splitting into Vision of W3C for the Web, and one with the vision of W3C as an organization,
… that will not go well.
… If I'm an deciding officer of a funding agency, I would like to see not just the Vision of W3C for the Web, but also how W3C intends to achieve that vision, what role is W3C playing in achieving that vision.
... Operationalizing can be a separate document.

<tantek> +1 AvneeshSingh exactly what I was going to say, on both points

<fantasai> +1

<hjrchung> +1 Avneesh

<cwilso> +1

<koalie> +1

<Alan> +1

<amy> +1 to Avneesh re: making sure to keep the vision and the purpose of W3C together

<Dingwei> +1

Tzviya: I agree it's good to keep these two pieces together.
... We've discussed documenting how to do these as a separate document.
... I'm seeing a lot of +1

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to propose closing without action

Tantek:  I propose closing this issue without change.

<florian> +1

<cwilso> POLL: Close this issue without change

POLL: Keep these two pieces together; close issue no change

<hjrchung> +1

<florian> +1

<cwilso> +1

<tzviya> +1

<koalie> +1

<tantek> +1

<Dingwei> +1

<amy> +1

<igarashi_> +1

<fantasai> +1

<Alan> +1

<jrosewell> 0

<Ralph> +1

<gendler> +1

<tzviya> w3c/AB-public#75

<amy> also +1 to Tzviya. I appreciate the directive to add part of the vision to strategic objectives

RESOLUTION: Keep these two pieces together; close issue 74 no change

Industries

github: w3c/AB-public#75
"The W3C is an association where diverse voices from around the world and industries come together"

Tzviya: This started discussion about the word "industries" and comments are on emphasis on "diversity."
… There were discussion about rewording it.
… Someone commented about demographics, but this was also about different areas of work,
… questions about global vs industry diversity.
... [summarizes further discussion]

<Zakim> amy, you wanted to wonder if "diverse voices" means voices from the web community

Amy: I wonder if we remove the word diverse and changing to acknowledge different communities

Florian: I think we have multiple issues overlaying each other.
… If we just say "diverse" people only think of personal characteristics.
… This is trying to point out that this is importnat, but also diversity in other dimensions:
… geographic, industries, industry vs academia.
… Removing "diversity" from this would be a disservice.
... But the word "industry" triggers Fabien in a particular way.
… I don't have a solution, but there's multiple layers to this.

<tantek> +1 florian, keep diversity explicitly as a term

cwilso:  The point I was trying to get across is that the use of the word "industries" is important here.
… We have to recognize that the Web has industry on it, it's a critical driver.
… It's important to have that word here.
… And the formulation now is that there shoudl be recogniition that there are diverse voices around the world and from different industries and we're trying to pull them all together.

Tzviya:  We'll continue next time.

<koalie> thanks all

Meeting closed

<Dingwei> great discussion, thanks