13:49:35 RRSAgent has joined #vision 13:49:40 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/07/13-vision-irc 13:50:01 meeting: Vision TF 13:50:11 zakim, prepare meeting 13:50:11 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:50:13 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), amy 13:50:22 meeting: Vision TF 13:50:44 agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/VisionTF/2023-07-13 13:51:12 tzviya has joined #vision 13:54:24 amy has changed the topic to: zoom link for today's call is: https://w3c.zoom.us/j/87399377591?pwd=M3ZuZm8rZ2VsOE5oZEFYcTd2bGJsZz09 13:58:55 present+ 13:59:22 AvneeshSingh has joined #vision 13:59:52 present+ 14:00:06 cpn has joined #vision 14:00:06 regrets+ Robin 14:00:40 hsano has joined #vision 14:01:42 present+ 14:01:47 igarashi has joined #vision 14:01:58 present+ 14:02:00 present+ 14:02:04 jrosewell has joined #vision 14:02:06 present+ 14:02:15 present+ 14:02:23 scribe: amy 14:02:29 Chair: Tzviya 14:02:41 present+ 14:02:45 present+ 14:02:51 scribe+ 14:02:53 wendyreid has joined #vision 14:03:00 Topic: Intro 14:03:05 topic: Introduction 14:03:29 tantek_ has joined #vision 14:03:30 Tzviya: Chris and Robin and I discussed how we seem to be rehashing issues. nitpicking and rewording. we don't seem to be getting very far 14:03:40 q+ 14:03:42 Dingwei has joined #vision 14:03:47 present+ 14:03:47 ... a lot of pull requests Chris did, did make progress. but we also want to propose an alternate version 14:03:47 present+ 14:04:10 ... as Avneesh pointed out we are sort of where we started, we looked at Visions from groups like the Red Cross 14:04:29 ...we have 2 alternate paths. we can talk about which path to pursue. we are missing people who have commented a lot: David, MikeC, Robin 14:04:37 ... but we have enough here to discuss. Chris? 14:04:41 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/102#issuecomment-1632938694 14:04:53 Chris: i wanted to drop in one comment from the thread. it was an active thread 14:05:09 topic: Progress on the vision 14:05:19 mchampion has joined #vision 14:05:34 Chris: where we got to was maybe we were not focusing on the right things. we were reaching the scope of what is the web. and even definition of EWP. 14:05:35 ack cwilso 14:05:42 zakim, allow 2 minutes 14:05:42 ok, tzviya 14:06:26 ... we were re-wordking EWP but we wanted something whcchih said this is w3c's principles. how do we look back and make sure we have the right actions 14:06:26 ... the comment i dropped in is the layers of which of these I saw. this is not the only way to look at it 14:06:26 present+ 14:06:29 zakim, who's on the call? 14:06:29 Present: amy, AvneeshSingh, cpn, hsano, fantasai, jrosewell, cwilso, wendyreid, igarashi, tantek_, Dingwei, Ralph 14:06:32 ... but looking at what role W3C plays and the principle by which it operates is where we want to focus 14:06:58 ... this came from wording already in there. wording Tzviya proposed. I didn't write this spring fully formed from my forehead. but capturing things that matter to the W3C 14:07:13 ... robin had comments on how do we know we've done the right thing. a map to check to see if we've been successful 14:07:39 ... this was based on the dive we did on other mission statements. they don't talk about why to aid people in other countries. they presume that. they talk about their role in doing that 14:08:06 present+ Tzviya, EricMeyer, MikeChampion 14:08:09 ... the ones Leonie dropped in, Aldi's mission statement is clear. Southwest was clear, it was to be the cheapest airline. if your actions didn't support being cheaper they were not going to do it 14:08:13 q? 14:08:16 ack fantasai 14:08:16 fantasai, you wanted to ask about publishing 14:08:18 ... using that clarity was inspiration 14:08:33 fantasai: I wanted to know, as we go through revisions, none of them have been published yet 14:08:43 emeyer has joined #vision 14:08:58 present+ 14:09:04 ... it's useful to go through things on TR to compare w/out digging through Git. none of URLs have an archive policy. we continue to churn document in GitHub 14:09:20 gendler has joined #vision 14:09:26 ... but we're not publishing side by side to see what changes. can we get published in TR and work off an actual technical report? 14:09:28 present+ 14:09:35 tzviya: I think that's question for the AB 14:09:48 fantasai: the AB resolved. it's been a few months. it would be nice to bookmark on TR 14:10:02 q+ 14:10:04 Tzviya: we've been hestitent to do so because there's been so much contention 14:10:09 ack Ralph 14:10:15 fantasai: we resolved in AB. i'm a little bit frustrated 14:10:35 Ralph: I want to mildy agree w/ Elika. the fact that we are struggling to find consensus for content and structure 14:10:53 ... shows that publishing work in progress infrequently, and providing chance for feedback, would help us 14:11:02 s/we resolved in AB./We resolved in the AB in May. If you changed your mind, then get the AB to resolve not to publish./ 14:11:14 ack cwilso 14:11:18 ... I think i concur w/ Elika, publishing early and often, while leaving opportunity to change radically is not a bad option especially as it's not an API spec 14:11:43 Chris: I'll start by taking personal respsonsilbyt for not publishing. it's work on my plate as editor. i haven't gotten to it 14:11:59 ... primarily because of large volume of feedback. it is visible. all the edits are there. 14:12:21 q+ to suggest that we leave 5-10 minutes to propose draft for publishing at the end 14:12:21 ... it's not in TR space and we should make it happen. the reason we've gotten to this point is because we've gotten people to say "You have the wrong thing here" 14:13:00 ack Ralph 14:13:01 ... I felt maybe we did and see what others think before changing dramatically. it maybe the the wrong space. I take responsibility. I simply have' thad time. Elika or Florian if you want to ok 14:13:09 Tzviya: i see a lot on the queue 14:13:25 Ralph: not to cast aspirations. we see groups saying "we know tis not perfect' but to publish outside GitHub 14:13:36 s/aspirations/aspersions 14:13:50 Ralph++ 14:13:53 ... one of my concerns is when any group invites comment outside group it shouldn't be in Git Hub. that space should be for the group. TR is for publishing 14:14:11 ack fantasai 14:14:14 Chris: I don't feel either you ralph or Elika, were sayin anything out of line and i don' feel attacked 14:14:34 fantasai: I don't understand resistance to publishing. we have a resolution. the point is to get feedback. it's marked as draft 14:14:38 https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#tooling 14:14:40 s/not to cast/I did not mean to cast/ 14:14:48 ack tz 14:14:48 tzviya, you wanted to suggest that we leave 5-10 minutes to propose draft for publishing at the end 14:14:50 ... not doing so as Ralph pointed out is not great and it's a violation of process. you should have URL 14:15:15 Please do not characterize this as "resistance to publishing". There is no resistance. 14:15:16 Tzviya: let's leave 5 mins at end to talk about v to publish. I don't see resistance. just a question on version is not resistance. it's timing. we'll leave time to publish 14:15:27 fantasai: we should publish what we have now. we can publish what we had in May 14:15:37 Tzviya: let's leave time at end for v 14:15:43 s/can publish/resolved to publish/ 14:16:02 ... let's go back to 2 version we have now. version we had where we tried to bite off too much, this proposed rewrite attempted to capture less info 14:16:12 ... it's not shorter but there's less there 14:16:41 ... Chris worded it better. it's not trying to capture the history of the web. the assumption is if you're reading about us the background info is there. we don't say we want to save the world. 14:17:05 ...we say here's what we're doing. if you say "i'm going to do great things" funders want to know the details. 14:17:23 ... we could work through details. there's been a lot of feedback. the question today is do we scrap the draft we have 14:17:31 Chris: is this a better approach 14:17:41 ack fantasai 14:17:42 Q+ to comment on purpose of this document 14:17:48 Tzviya: approach 1 is what we've been doing, approach 2 is from a few days ago 14:18:05 fantasai: David mentioned the vision needs to serve as a bridge between mission 1 liner and EWP 14:18:29 ... so you're not just jumping into that. not a mistake to state vision. no one will read EWP before. 14:18:48 ... I'm not sure we want ot rip all that part out. "good of users, one interoperable web" 14:18:55 ... new version has a long paragraphs, hard to digest 14:19:09 ... current version has shorter lists w/ shorter things so easier to follow 14:19:17 q? 14:19:20 Tzviya: that's stylistic that could be easily edited 14:19:20 ack AvneeshSingh 14:19:20 AvneeshSingh, you wanted to comment on purpose of this document 14:19:33 Avneesh: personally what I wrote in the last comment is in sync w/ what Elika said 14:19:53 Avneesh's comment -> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/102#issuecomment-1634102804 14:19:58 q+ 14:19:59 ... the purpose question, when we take a big step, what do we want to perceive. that's the big question. would be good to nail down that 14:20:04 ack cw 14:20:07 q? 14:20:29 Chris: to answer that. this was a deliberate attempt to do that. the goal is to help world understand what w3c is, what it does and why that matters 14:20:37 +1 14:20:40 q+ 14:20:42 s/ shows that publishing work in progress infrequently/ shows that publishing work in progress frequently/ 14:20:51 .. the problem we got into before was to explain what the web is, how the web should be better, what the w3c is, how it should be better and what the end results should be 14:21:11 ...c collapsing to show what w3C is was the change. if this isn't reflected it needs more work but that was the intent 14:21:11 ack AvneeshSingh 14:21:33 Avneesh: just to tell how i've been doing it. strategic management. we create profile, here' the audience. person from tech org 14:21:49 q+ to talk about audiences 14:22:02 ... what does that person want form this doc. or funding agency. what do they want to see? we do this profiling for different audiences. main audiences are our target. what structure would be best 14:22:03 q+ to suggest that we do publish what we have currently as a snapshot and then take up the new approach in a separate GitHub doc and iterate there 14:22:05 ack av 14:22:35 Tzviya: that's very helpful. you've mentioned this before. for this version we have a few potential audiences. i believe the Board is looking for a document that can be an initial entry point for donations. not full extensive document 14:22:49 ... not all funding documents. there's also going to be a landing page, what the w3c is about 14:23:00 ... very different purposes. a basic w3c explanation will help 14:23:01 ack Ralph 14:23:35 +1 Ralph not to be driven by "what the Board wants" 14:23:37 ack me 14:23:37 tzviya, you wanted to talk about audiences 14:23:38 ack tantek_ 14:23:38 tantek_, you wanted to suggest that we do publish what we have currently as a snapshot and then take up the new approach in a separate GitHub doc and iterate there 14:23:39 Ralph: there have been many references to what the board wants. i urge this group to not be driven by what the board wants. if the board decides it wokr.s ok, if not they can do that. let's not drive by what the board wants 14:23:45 q+ to talk about audiences 14:24:06 s/what the board wants/what we perceive the Board might want/ 14:24:21 s/to what the board wants/to "what the Board wants"/ 14:24:27 Tantek: I belive I proposed minimal viable vision is operationally to externalize principles Tim used to make decisions. we can talk about additional clients, funders, etc. those are not part of minimum viable vision. it's not minimal for shipping draft. 14:24:41 q+ 14:24:52 q+ to respond to tantek 14:25:06 ... if there are audiences, great, we can do so accordingly. treating them as first pricinples is absurd. if there's disagreement i'm open to hearing this. but we need a vision draft for when we have FO council w/out Tim so they can make decisions. 14:25:30 ... i want to record this on the minutes. i'm a little tired of repeating it. that's not what i queued for. we should publish a snapshot. let's pick a version that is stable. 14:25:57 ack amy 14:25:57 amy, you wanted to talk about audiences 14:26:03 ... i trust Chris' judgement. maybe w/ help from Elika and florian. i appreciate all the work. i'd like to se m 14:26:04 s/it wokr.s ok, if not they can do that/what this group has produced serves some of its needs, that's great and if they feel they need more they can propose additional actions/ 14:26:10 amy: From Comm Point of view, looking at stakeholders over time 14:26:16 ... we look at concentric circles 14:26:28 ... so W3C as inner group, can also look as developers, and lastly public 14:26:41 ... but agree with Tantek's point to first describe for ourseves 14:26:46 ... not do all the groups at once 14:26:52 ack cw 14:26:52 cwilso, you wanted to respond to tantek 14:26:54 ... [missed] 14:27:16 Chris: first i wanted to respond to tantek's feedback on this needs to replace principles Tim had in his head. that's the sole purpose 14:27:50 ... it's how is the w3c being done. Tim is a principled individual. what principles are we running on now. it's extrapolation of that. i'm sorry if you're not seeing that in the former draft and in this new approach 14:27:52 q+ 14:27:55 s/i urge this group to not/I urge this group to be driven by what this group believes is needed for the organization and for the community and not to/ 14:27:58 q+ 14:28:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/13-vision-minutes.html Ralph 14:28:19 ... between that and audience.we can write a ton of stuff. that is not just dangling bait. ppl tend to respond to text and not what principles are and getting them down 14:28:56 q+ to propose straw poll 14:28:57 Chris: I've chosen priorities to get principles out the door as quickly as possible 14:28:59 ack jrosewell 14:29:05 https://contractfortheweb.org/ 14:29:08 James: someone said earlier what was in Tim's head 14:29:16 +1 cwilso get principles out the door as quickly as possible 14:29:17 Contract for the Web was Web Foundation not W3C 14:29:39 James: the 2nd one was the fundamental problem of competition. that's lacking in both documents. whatever direction is chosen 14:29:49 ack AvneeshSingh 14:30:32 Avneesh: I've been in discussion w/ Tantek and Chris, having operating principles if that's the sole aim. it's up to the group. maybe the vision document is misleading. because people have different expectants. maybe focus on operating principles 14:30:50 Tzviya; I think "vision' is confusing. I think we may have removed it but it doesn't matter 14:31:04 0 14:31:10 2 14:31:10 ... i think we would have straw poll, of #1 years long or #2 the new one 14:31:14 2 14:31:18 2 14:31:22 2 14:31:22 2 14:31:26 1 for now 14:31:36 1 publish it, *and* allow/encouraging work on 2 in parallel. it's ok if we leave 1 alone in the repo 14:31:39 1 14:31:47 1 14:31:47 2 14:31:52 I would suggest to publish old doc and then nail down the main purpose of the document 14:31:52 0 as I think both are viable so happy with either 14:32:07 Chris: I will note i'm not sure the proposal got written out 14:32:09 s/many references to what we perceive the Board might want./many references to "what the Board wants."/ 14:32:46 Straw Poll: Move forward with approach 1 (as have been for a long time) or approach 2 (newly proposed) 14:33:17 Tzviya: I'm seeing six 2s; five 1s. pretty much a tie. 14:33:37 ... we can publish and iterate on that 14:33:45 ack me 14:33:45 tzviya, you wanted to propose straw poll 14:33:53 Chris: if we publish the current draft, then ask the question again if this would be a different balance 14:34:02 Tantek: If you'd see a shift? 14:34:07 ack fantasai 14:34:13 Chris: people who might be responding to not having something published in TR 14:34:19 s/If you'd see a shift?/I think you would see a shift 14:34:51 q+ to note we have something of value and some degree of iterative consensus and that's worth this group publishing with that status 14:34:55 fantasai: I think we should publish. you've done a large rewrite. I think it might take work to get quality of before. if you take a different approach. get it it a point where it looks good 14:34:58 ack tantek_ 14:34:58 tantek_, you wanted to note we have something of value and some degree of iterative consensus and that's worth this group publishing with that status 14:35:36 Tantek: we have something of value. we've put a lot of time into it. multiple years. it's got some degree of iterative consensus. it's long past the point of sufficient work in the group. we should do that 14:36:05 ... groups love to rewrite everything. let's put the stake in the ground. let people comment. then discuss how to move forward. i think we're blocked in that we haven't published. 14:36:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/13-vision-minutes.html Ralph 14:36:32 Tzviya: i have mixed feelings about ti. i understand the need to publish. if we're going to completely pivot. I don't want to put out this version and ask for comment 14:36:36 +1 to waiting 2 weeks 14:36:43 Tzviya: to get this version into shape 14:36:48 -1 14:36:58 strong -1 to not publishing 14:37:04 We already resolved to make it a draft 14:37:07 ... i hear a need to get things into shape to publish. I think we could say this is a working drat. the one we want you to comment on 14:37:09 if we have issues, mark an issue in the draft 14:37:19 that's what ISSUE is for 14:37:21 ... I see Elika objects because we've resolved to make it a draft 14:37:33 ... i see if we have issues to mark in the draft but it's a rewrite 14:37:42 q+ 14:37:46 fantasai: we're considering a rewrite. we don't have consensus to move to a reswite 14:37:54 ack jr 14:37:56 .... publish early, publish often. we should be setting a good example 14:38:13 james: I don't have the AB minutes at hand. what's the driving factor to publish? 14:38:21 s/let's not drive by what the board wants/let's not drive by what we perceive the board might want/ 14:38:29 Chris: what erika and ralph mentioned, things in GitHub are not in w3c historical record 14:39:09 All reports, publications, or other deliverables produced by the group for public consumption (i.e. intended for use or reference outside its own membership) should be published and promoted at a W3C-controlled URL, and backed up by W3C systems such that if the underlying service is discontinued, W3C can continue to serve such content without breaking incoming links or other key functionality. 14:39:11 Ralph: when w3c publishes a document it publishes on w3.org. not an outside group. we want people not to point to things in outside space 14:39:15 -> https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#tooling 14:39:21 Tzviya: we're moving to publish 14:39:25 q+ 14:39:29 Chris: current draft on tr. 14:39:39 ack jrosewell 14:39:42 Tzviya; we can talk about if after it's published we move forward or another approach 14:39:54 James: i agree w/ what Chris said 14:40:09 s/not an outside group/GitHub should be for working space, not publishing space. 14:40:19 Tzviya: if we get published. we still have the decision to make. this is after publication, what approach do we take? 14:40:46 Straw Poll: Move forward (after publication of current draft) move forward with approach 1 or approach 2? 14:40:50 ack fantasai 14:41:12 fantasai: I would be helpful to take incremental approach. this section we will keep, that section is rewrite. it's clear what is being removed or rewritten or added 14:41:18 q+ 14:41:24 ack cw 14:41:32 2 14:41:37 2 14:41:40 2 14:41:41 2 14:41:45 0 14:41:49 2 14:41:50 0 14:42:06 0 14:42:13 2 14:42:14 q+ 14:42:26 q+ 14:42:30 0 14:42:54 ack AvneeshSingh 14:43:43 ack cw 14:43:46 Avneesh: let's publish it and then nail down what is the thing we're working on. if operating principles that Tim has in his head. let's have a straw poll after 2 weeks. i'm nervous we're in too many directions. let's pick one thing, our prime focus, and nail it down. 14:44:17 Chris: I think what Avneesh just said is the goal of what we're trying to raise today. and it is a "can we focus on what our approach is" not "is this set of text better honed than this set of text" 14:44:33 ... i do want to be clear. i'm not going to write this out step by step from the former document 14:45:02 ... I did that before in a larger reshuffling was requested. i think it's distracting. i'm not convinced we have enough consensus on that draft we have from the broader set of ppl here 14:45:27 ... i was suggesting a different approach. i'm ambivalent about the current draft in TR 14:45:48 ...the point is to take a new approach. not to revise the old document. i think it would be good to get someone else to edit this document 14:46:13 Tzviya: thanks, ok. there's some suggest that the general direction is we publish for a variety of reasons. then we focus on the clear audience and goal 14:46:49 ...i agree w/ Chris that focusing on individual points. is not helpful. i think one thing I've seen raised is clarity. esp for those for whom English is not a 1st language 14:47:06 ... the document was just a draft so nobody massaged the language. 14:47:29 ... I hear Chris asked for edits. we know Chris is extraordinarly busy. we want to avoid editing by committee. 14:47:58 ... no one to massage to make sure it looks like it was written by one human. for specs this is ok but for this we want people to read this 14:48:08 q? 14:48:16 ... this is a different approach then technical specs. I will not offer to write but will edit 14:48:22 q+ 14:48:41 q- 14:48:50 ... we need to come ot the next meeting w/ a published document and an understanding of our goals. maybe I can work on goals and audience. Amy maybe you can help w/ goals and audience and additional editors 14:49:36 amy: I think this was a positive discussion in terms of honing things that are important 14:49:43 ... sorting out direction 14:49:52 ... I know tone is frustrating, and this is a good thing to be passionate about 14:50:05 ... I appreciate that and reminder that we want to continue to speak to each other collegially 14:50:10 ... so thanks everyone for suggestions 14:50:33 Tzviya: thank you very much everyone 14:50:58 .... we'll meet again in 2 weeks. we requested time at the TPAC. 14:51:38 ... I'll mention also that i'll have to miss the next meeting so we'll have to figure out who will chair. we can work it out 14:51:44 Monday and Tuesday, 17:00-18:30 14:51:50 ^^ time at TPAC 14:52:19 Ralph: what level of confirmation is this? 14:52:26 Chris: I got this from Alex's spreadsheet 14:52:32 Tzviya: this is the time in Seville 14:52:37 ... thank you everyone 14:53:43 zakim, end meeting 14:53:43 As of this point the attendees have been amy, AvneeshSingh, cpn, hsano, fantasai, jrosewell, cwilso, wendyreid, igarashi, tantek_, Dingwei, Ralph, Tzviya, EricMeyer, MikeChampion, 14:53:43 ... emeyer, gendler 14:53:43 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 14:53:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/13-vision-minutes.html Zakim 14:53:50 I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 14:53:50 emeyer has left #vision 14:53:50 Zakim has left #vision