Meeting minutes
Progress on the Vision
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.
… There were a lot of pull requests Chris did, we did make progress but we also want to propose an alternate version.
… As Avneesh pointed out, we are sort of where we started. We looked at Visions from groups like the Red Cross.
… 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.
… But we have enough people here to discuss. Chris?
<cwilso> w3c/
Chris: I wanted to drop in one comment from the thread. It was an active thread.
... 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 the definition of Ethical Web Principles.
… We were re-working EWP but we wanted something which said: this is W3C's principles. How do we look back and make sure we have the right actions?
… The comment I dropped in is the layers of which of these I saw. This is not the only way to look at it.
… But looking at what role W3C plays and the principles by which it operates is where we want to focus.
… This came from wording already in there, wording Tzviya proposed. I didn't write this sprung fully formed from my forehead, but capturing things that matter to the W3C.
… 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.
… 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.
… 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.
... Using that clarity was inspiration.
<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to ask about publishing
fantasai: I wanted to know, as we go through revisions, why none of them have been published yet.
… It's useful to go through things on TR to compare without digging through GitHub. None of the URLs have an archive policy. We continue to churn document in GitHub.
… But we're not publishing side by side to see what changes. Can we get the note published in TR and work off an actual technical report?
Tzviya: I think that's question for the AB.
fantasai: The AB resolved. It's been a few months. It would be nice to bookmark on TR.
Tzviya: We've been hestitent to do so because there's been so much contention.
fantasai: We resolved this in the AB in May. If you changed your mind, then get the AB to resolve not to publish. I'm a little bit frustrated.
Ralph: I want to mildy agree with Elika. The fact that we are struggling to find consensus for content and structure
… shows that publishing work in progress frequently, and providing chance for feedback, would help us.
… I think I concur with Elika, publishing early and often, while leaving opportunity to change radically is not a bad option especially as it's not an API spec.
Chris: I'll start by taking personal responsiblity for not publishing. It's work on my plate as Editor. I haven't gotten to it
… primarily because of large volume of feedback. It is visible. All the edits are there.
… 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."
… I felt maybe we did and see what others think before changing dramatically. It maybe was the the wrong space. I take responsibility. I simply haven't had time. Elika or Florian if you want to, that's ok.
Tzviya: I see a lot of people on the queue.
Ralph: I did not mean to cast aspersions. We see groups saying "we know it's not perfect" but it's good to publish outside GitHub.
... One of my concerns is when any group invites comment from outside the group it shouldn't be in Git Hub. That space should be for the group. TR is for publishing.
<fantasai> Ralph++
Chris: I don't feel either you Ralph or Elika, were sayin anything out of line and I don't feel attacked.
fantasai: I don't understand resistance to publishing. We have a resolution. The point is to get feedback. It's marked as Draft.
... Not doing so, as Ralph pointed out, is not great and it's a violation of process. You should have a URL.
https://
<cwilso> Please do not characterize this as "resistance to publishing". There is no resistance.
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to suggest that we leave 5-10 minutes to propose draft for publishing at the end
Tzviya: Let's leave 5 minutes at end to talk about which version to publish. I don't see resistance. Just a question on which version is not resistance. It's timing. We'll leave time to publish.
fantasai: We should publish what we have now. We resolved to publish what we had in May.
Tzviya: Let's leave time at end for versions.
… Let's go back to the two versions we have now. One version we had where we tried to bite off too much, this proposed rewrite attempted to capture less info.
… It's not shorter but there's less there.
… 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.
… We say here's what we're doing. If you say: "I'm going to do great things" funders want to know the details.
… We could work through details. There's been a lot of feedback. The question today is do we scrap the draft we have?
Chris: Is this a better approach?
Tzviya: Approach 1 is what we've been doing. Approach 2 is from a few days ago.
fantasai: David mentioned the Vision needs to serve as a bridge between a mission one liner and the Ethical Web Principles.
… So you're not just jumping into that. It's not a mistake to state the Vision. No one will read the EWP before.
… I'm not sure we want to rip all that part out: "good of users; one interoperable web."
… The new version has a long paragraphs, it's hard to digest.
… The current version has shorter lists with shorter things, so it's easier to follow.
Tzviya: That's stylistic. That could be easily edited.
<Zakim> AvneeshSingh, you wanted to comment on purpose of this document
Avneesh: Personally what I wrote in the last comment is in sync wit what Elika said.
... 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.
Chris: To answer that, this was a deliberate attempt to do that. The goal is to help the world understand what W3C is, what it does, and why that matters.
... 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.
… Collapsing to show what W3C is was the change. If this isn't reflected it needs more work but that was the intent.
<fantasai>+1
Avneesh: Just to tell how I've been doing it, with strategic management we create are profile: here's the audience, a person from technical organization.
… What does that person want from this document or what would a funding agency want? What do they want to see? We do this profiling for different audiences. The main audiences are our target. What structure would be best.
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 a full extensive document
… Not all funding documents. There's also going to be a landing page for what the W3C is about.
… They are very different purposes. A basic W3C explanation will help.
Ralph: There have been many references to "what the Board wants." I urge this group to be driven by what this group believes is needed for the organization and for the community and not to be driven by what the Board wants. If the Board decides 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. Let's not drive by what we perceive the Board might want.
<tantek_> +1 Ralph not to be driven by "what the Board wants"
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about audiences
<Zakim> 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
Tantek: I belive I proposed that a minimal viable Vision is operationally to externalize the 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 a Draft.
… If there are audiences, great, we can do so accordingly. Treating them as first principles is absurd. If there's disagreement I'm open to hearing this. But we need a Vision Draft for when we have FOs, councils without Tim, so they can make decisions.
… 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.
... I trust Chris' judgement. Maybe with help from Elika and Florian it can be published. I appreciate all the work. I'd like to see more.
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to talk about audiences
Amy: From a Comm point of view, looking at stakeholders over time,
… we look at a series of concentric circles.
… So W3C as the inner group, then next we can also look at developers, potential members, funders, and lastly the public.
… But I agree with Tantek's point to first describe for ourselves,
… not do all the groups at once.
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to respond to tantek
Chris: First I wanted to respond to Tantek's feedback on how this needs to replace principles Tim had in his head. That's the sole purpose.
… It's how is the W3C is being done. Tim is a principled individual. What principles are we running on now? It's an extrapolation of that. I'm sorry if you're not seeing that in the former draft and in this new approach.
… Between that and the audience we can write a ton of stuff. That is not just dangling bait. People tend to respond to text and not what principles are and getting them down.
...I've chosen priorities to get principles out the door as quickly as possible.
<tantek_> +1 cwilso get principles out the door as quickly as possible
<jrosewell> https://
James: Someone said earlier what was in Tim's head. I would point out several years ago Tim started something called "Contract for the Web" maybe that's relevant.
... The second one was the fundamental problem of competition. That's lacking in both documents. Whatever direction is chosen.
<amy> Contract for the Web was Web Foundation not W3C
Avneesh: I've been in discussion with 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 expectations. Maybe focus on operating principles.
Tzviya: I think "vision' is confusing. I think we may have removed it but it doesn't matter.
… I think we would have straw poll, for #1 the years long version or #2 the new one
<jrosewell> 0
<tzviya> 2
<wendyreid> 2
<cpn> 2
<gendler> 2
<cwilso> 2
<fantasai> 1 for now
<tantek_> 1 publish it, *and* allow/encouraging work on 2 in parallel. it's ok if we leave 1 alone in the repo
<igarashi> 1
<emeyer> 1
<mchampion> 2
<AvneeshSingh> I would suggest to publish old doc and then nail down the main purpose of the document
<amy> 0 as I think both are viable so happy with either
Chris: I will note i'm not sure the proposal got written out.
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to propose straw poll
<tzviya> Straw Poll: Move forward with approach 1 (as have been for a long time) or approach 2 (newly proposed)
Tzviya: I'm seeing six 2s; five 1s. It's pretty much a tie.
… We can publish and iterate on that.
Chris: If we publish the current draft, then I ask the question again if this would be a different balance.
Tantek: I think you would see a shift.
Chris: People might be responding to not having something published in TR
fantasai: I think we should publish. You've done a large rewrite. I think it might take work to get to the quality of what was done before. If you take a different approach, get it to a point where it looks good.
<Zakim> 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
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.
… Groups love to rewrite everything. Let's put the stake in the ground. Let people comment. Then we can discuss how to move forward. I think we're blocked in that we haven't published.
Tzviya: I have mixed feelings about it. 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 comments.
... To get this version into shape. Should we give it two weeks?
<amy> +1 to waiting 2 weeks
<fantasai> -1
<fantasai> strong -1 to not publishing
<fantasai> We already resolved to make it a draft
<fantasai> if we have issues, mark an issue in the draft
<fantasai> that's what ISSUE is for
Tzviya: I hear a need to get things into shape to publish. I think we could say this is a Working Draft. The one we want you to comment on.
... I see Elika objects because we've resolved to make it a Draft.
… I see if we have issues to mark in the Draft but it's a rewrite.
fantasai: We're considering a rewrite. We don't have consensus to move to a rewrite.
… Publish early, publish often. We should be setting a good example.
James: I don't have the AB minutes at hand. What's the driving factor to publish?
Chris: What Elika and Ralph mentioned, things in GitHub are not in W3C historical record.
<fantasai> 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.
Ralph: When W3C publishes a document it publishes on w3.org. GitHub should be for working space, not publishing space. We want people not to point to things in outside space.
fantasai: https://
Tzviya: We're moving to publish.
Chris: The current draft is onTR.
Tzviya: We can talk about if after it's published. We can move forward or another approach.
James: I agree with what Chris said.
Tzviya: If we get published, we still have the decision to make. This is after publication, what approach do we take?
<tzviya> Straw Poll: Move forward (after publication of current draft) move forward with approach 1 or approach 2?
fantasai: It would be helpful to take incremental approach. This section we will keep, that section is rewrite so it's clear what is being removed or rewritten or added.
<cwilso> 2
<gendler> 2
<tzviya> 2
<cpn> 2
<jrosewell> 0
<amy> 2
<fantasai> 0
<igarashi> 0
<emeyer> 2
<Ralph> 0
Avneesh: Let's publish it and then nail down what is the thing we're working on if it is the 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.
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?"
… I do want to be clear. I'm not going to write this out step by step from the former document.
… I did that before, 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 people here.
… I was suggesting a different approach. I'm ambivalent about the current draft in TR.
… 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.
Tzviya: Thanks, ok. There's some suggestion that the general direction is we publish for a variety of reasons then we focus on the clear audience and goal.
… I agree with Chris that focusing on individual points is not helpful. I think one thing I've seen raised is clarity, especially for those for whom English is not a 1st language.
… The document was just a draft so nobody massaged the language.
… I hear Chris asked for edits. We know Chris is extraordinarly busy. We want to avoid editing by committee.
… We want someone to massage it to make sure it looks like it was written by one human. For specs editing by committee is ok but for this we want people to read this.
… This is a different approach than technical specs. I will not offer to write but will edit.
… We need to come to the next meeting with a published document and an understanding of our goals. Maybe I can work on goals and audiences. Amy maybe you can help with goals and audience and additional editors
Amy: I think this was a positive discussion in terms of honing things that are important and
… sorting out the direction.
… I know tone is frustrating, and this is a good thing to be passionate about.
… I appreciate that and want to remind that we want to continue to speak to each other collegially.
… So thanks everyone for suggestions.
Tzviya: Thank you very much everyone.
… We'll meet again in 2 weeks. We requested time at the TPAC.
… 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.
<cwilso> Monday and Tuesday, 17:00-18:30
<cwilso> ^^ time at TPAC
Ralph: What level of confirmation is this?
Chris: I got this from Alex's spreadsheet.
Tzviya: This is the time in Seville.
… Thank you everyone.