13:49:48 RRSAgent has joined #vision 13:49:53 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/08/10-vision-irc 13:49:53 Zakim has joined #vision 13:51:31 agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/VisionTF/2023-08-10 13:51:48 meeting: Vision TF meeting 13:52:07 zakim, prepare meeting 13:52:07 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:52:09 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), amy 13:52:15 meeting: Vision TF meeting 13:55:06 -> https://www.w3.org/2023/07/13-vision-minutes.html Previous (2023-07-13) 13:55:30 hsano has joined #vision 13:57:18 present+ 13:58:43 present+ 13:59:16 Chair: Chris 14:00:26 gendler has joined #vision 14:00:36 present+ 14:00:46 AvneeshSingh has joined #vision 14:00:57 present+ 14:01:04 present+ Coralie 14:01:16 wendyreid has joined #vision 14:01:35 present+ avneesh wendyreid 14:01:35 present+ 14:01:44 plh has joined #vision 14:01:48 Dingwei has joined #vision 14:01:49 present+ chrisn 14:01:54 present+ 14:01:54 present+ 14:01:59 present+ 14:02:07 cpn has joined #vision 14:02:27 present+ Aram 14:02:30 regrets: Tzviya 14:02:39 present+ fantasai 14:02:55 scribe: amy 14:03:12 Chris: I will chair the call. Tzviya is away. this is a continuation of our meeting from last time 14:03:28 ... we do now have a published version of the Vision on /TR as a note and have seen comments which is great 14:03:32 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/102 14:03:58 ... I think the issue that kicked this off, started bc several of us, Tzivya, Robin etc had gotten unwieldy in the document 14:04:26 ... not clear how they interrelated and how relate to EWP to simplify down. to say the principles of the web are the domain of the EWP. we should not try to reduce them 14:04:38 ... to make them simpler and more explainable. the mission of W3C. 14:04:53 ...when we looked at similar documents, most of these eg: Red Cross or DWB 14:05:05 ... they were focused on the mission, not the vision. the scope 14:05:15 ...we thought it would be better to focus on how the w3c should operate 14:05:26 ... not just those that touch on the web. it is not perfect yet 14:05:32 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/blob/2e9e600afbf632a45ea816f31514a07f48ffd760/Vision/proposal.md 14:05:37 ... i haven't had a chance to restructure yet. Tzviya linked in the agenda 14:05:48 ...we discussed this and had pushback as we hadn't published anything 14:05:54 https://w3c.github.io/AB-public/Vision 14:05:55 ... wanted to ask about this one vs. the current TR 14:06:11 ... i'm encouraging ppl to weigh in and which paths we should go down. i feel i need direction 14:06:28 ... i feel issues we're seeing are wording or disagreements. some will cycle down into counterproductity 14:06:28 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/DNOTE-w3c-vision-20230725/ published note 14:06:51 ... like tweaking one word and there are nuances ppl argue about. i note that last night Elika filed some feedback 14:06:56 ack fantasai 14:07:04 At a high level, the changes I see are: 14:07:04 Remove the “Intention” section 14:07:04 Remove the “Vision for the World Wide Web” section. 14:07:04 Adjust some wording in the first part of the “Introduction” section. 14:07:05 Revise the last few paragraphs of the “Introduction” section. 14:07:07 Add a new “The W3C” section. 14:07:09 Combine “Vision for W3C” and “Principles and Values” into a single section. 14:07:13 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/108 14:07:29 q+ to mention i miss the sort of "vision" aspect of ideals and note EWP are not on the Rec Track maybe? but can understand Chris' point 14:07:36 My comments -> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/108 14:07:36 fantasai: I have comments but wrote them down here 14:07:45 Chris: why don't we come back to that 14:07:45 scribe+ 14:07:45 ack amy 14:07:45 amy, you wanted to mention i miss the sort of "vision" aspect of ideals and note EWP are not on the Rec Track maybe? but can understand Chris' point 14:07:53 q+ 14:07:55 q+ to discuss fantasai's high level points 14:07:58 amy: I really thought that the original vision as it was written was great 14:08:05 AramZS has joined #vision 14:08:05 ... I can see why we want to change 14:08:15 ... but I appreciated having a vision to what W3C could be in relation to the Web 14:08:24 ... not saying how Web should be, but how W3C should be 14:08:34 ... I can see Chris's point for saying focus on what we do 14:08:39 ... I see usefulness of that 14:08:51 ... but I miss the high-level vision, which was succinctly and beautifully said 14:09:06 amy: good to have Vision and EWP, both valuable. EWP isn't REC-track 14:09:10 ... both are good, and solid 14:09:10 qq+ to respond to EWP REC-track 14:09:19 ... I would hate to lose the practicality of the second version 14:09:36 ... but it's valuable for us, lacking the founding Directory to ask how interact with the world and principles 14:09:45 ack next 14:09:46 ... to have outlined in a formal way, able to point to public what we're doing here 14:09:47 cwilso, you wanted to react to amy to respond to EWP REC-track 14:09:56 chris: EWP is currently a note from the TAG 14:10:04 ... stated goal is to put it on the Statement track 14:10:07 Chris: quickly to respond that EwP are a note. their stated goal is to be on the statement track. so it would be Rec track. though it's not Rec 14:10:17 ... I do think their method of developing that is more TAG centric than the TF here 14:10:21 ack next 14:10:30 s/amy+/scribe+/ 14:10:37 Avneesh: I think that it would be very helpful if we had discussion on main principles.of what we want to achieve 14:10:51 ... then we can go from there. one main principle was that we'll focus on role of w3c. vs. what th web should be 14:11:02 ... 2nd is that we provide a basis for the community for making decisons 14:11:12 ... the other two, if we have agreement, improving text would be easier 14:11:18 present+ 14:11:24 ack fantasai 14:11:24 fantasai, you wanted to support amy 14:11:35 fantasai: I want to say +1 to Amy. the previous version, it's not a replacement of EWP 14:11:49 q+ 14:11:53 ... but a summary of vision of web in 4 bullet points was a good capture of what we're doing here. ti puts the rest of ht vision in context 14:11:57 q- later 14:12:10 ...the goal was to help guide decision making. why are these our guiding principles. not replace EWP 14:12:30 q? 14:12:31 .. they go into details, comprehensive. if we want a vision for W3C we need a direction to go in and that intro stated it very clearly and powerfully 14:12:34 ack wendyreid 14:12:50 Wendy: I think agree w/ both Elika and Amy. .looking at 2 documents. one thing I like about the published version 14:13:13 ... it's very easy to read. mix of paragraphs. it is long. the rewrite does the job of making it shorter 14:13:14 +1 wendyreid, it feels a lot easier to read 14:13:31 ... the bullets make it very very clear what this is. if you only skim those you take away a lot of what we are 14:13:52 ... i like the rewrite as it made longer text much more clear. i want to maintain heading and bullets as it makes it easier to read 14:14:00 Chris: keep bulletization? 14:14:27 Wendy: yes. keep bullets and the rewrite of longer sections. when you break it into web and w3c those are better structured. vision as 4 bullet points. no notes 14:14:43 ... bc we have vision and principles and values broken out. it's more clear and parseable 14:14:45 ack fantasai 14:14:45 fantasai, you wanted to summarize my feedback 14:14:45 q+ 14:14:51 q- later 14:15:08 -> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/108 14:15:09 fantasai: I agree w/ what Wendy said also i went through both document.s some text in common and new one has sections that were dropped 14:15:21 ... summarizing my comments I wrote up. there was an intention section that I think is worth keeping 14:15:23 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/DNOTE-w3c-vision-20230725/#intention 14:15:39 ... it does a good job of what the document is aiming to do. explains what it is for and guide how we evolve this document 14:15:56 ... it's important. if we write marketing copy it won't go there but for technical 14:16:05 ... I think the first part is background not intro 14:16:27 .. 1st paragraph flows more smoothly. last section felt a little awkward w/ new paragraphs but could be improved 14:16:39 ... not sure where section "w3c" was trying to do. 1s section "founded for' great 14:16:57 ...then it said "we must do these" then talked about impact but i'm not sure why that's in intro or what that is to accomplish there 14:17:03 .. i'd like an explanation of what you're thinking 14:17:13 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/DNOTE-w3c-vision-20230725/#vision-web 14:17:21 ... i think the vision for w3c is brilliant. it's compelling. it makes you care to read the rest 14:17:36 ..you combine vision/values/@ which ok but i feel the text got consulted and harder to scan 14:17:43 .. I think points we did want to keep got lost 14:18:01 ... I think that's a good approach and we should keep going. working on those sections but I think we're not there yet 14:18:16 ... I want to understand for the substantial. changes what did you think. why change this to that. 14:18:20 s/@ which ok/principles which is ok/ 14:18:22 ... a lot of changes i don't understand the thinking 14:18:24 ack next 14:18:35 Florian: I would also like to argue to keep the vision for the web section on a different logic 14:18:54 ... i think we've been talking, not just here, defining the web is hard. it does give defining characteristics of the web 14:19:09 ... something that would not target humanity,. that would not be interop web. safety of users 14:19:26 ... even if the boundary of what isn't is fuzzy. it's good to say things that broadly match, belong here. others don't 14:19:43 ...outling that is helpful. when we think fo a new technological area. if we have questions if it's developing in a way 14:20:03 q? 14:20:20 ... w/out going into detail a basic principle. "this is web like" and belongs. included in principles and we can have other docs like EWP but broad strokes is helpful 14:20:23 ...it's not long 14:20:23 ack cw 14:20:23 cwilso, you wanted to discuss fantasai's high level points 14:20:29 q+ 14:20:35 Chris: I will attempt to explain some of the changes. this has been helpful so far 14:20:39 scribe+ 14:20:50 chris: Goal of a lot of what this was trying to do is recongnizizing that what we have 14:20:51 [Ralph joins late, after previous meeting ran over] 14:20:53 present+ 14:20:59 ... is a document labeled "Vision for W3C' and it's not a vision for W3C 14:21:12 zakim, who's on the call? 14:21:12 Present: cwilso, amy, gendler, AvneeshSingh, Coralie, wendyreid, hsano, chrisn, Dingwei, plh, Aram, fantasai, florian, Ralph 14:21:15 ... the current /TR draft is a vision of the Web and a set of principles, and to some degree, a mission for W3C in scope of the web 14:21:18 ... defining its role in the Web 14:21:27 ... simultaneously, there was a lot of pushback on what goes into the vision of the Web 14:21:40 ... and it's really important that we nail down the mission of the W3C as we move through transition 14:21:45 ... and how we fit in with other standards orgs 14:21:58 present+ Eric_Meyer 14:21:58 ... More than anything, having principles behind those because we can't as TimBL 14:22:02 ... we need to define those guiding lights for the organization 14:22:06 s/as/ask/ 14:22:26 ... Summary of feedback I'm hearing is, no we really need that vision for the Web 14:22:28 present+ Eric_Meyer 14:22:37 ... Reviewing other groups, they didn't have vision for the organization, but mission for it 14:22:40 ... scope was implied 14:22:43 ... so I centered around doing that 14:22:52 ... specific changes that Elika was asking about, e.g. stripping out Intention section 14:23:05 ... there was no section called Intention prior to publishing 14:23:11 ... We were asked to define status of the doucment 14:23:17 ... couldn't use SOTD because boilerplate 14:23:20 ... it's still kinda weird 14:23:33 ... I looked at details between that and EWP, there was more motivation in the Intention section 14:23:40 ... but you're right, it would go away as we present as marketing material 14:23:51 ... parts of that aren't really necessary to put in the document 14:23:56 ... like "timeless enough" 14:24:00 fantasai: no I think it's important 14:24:22 chris: Introduction, note WWW and W3C are separate subsections of Introduction 14:24:34 ... we already had these to say what Web is, and this is what W3C is doing for the Web 14:24:36 ... attempt to clarify 14:24:43 ... So some past history and background of Web 14:24:51 ... then roll into this is where W3C came from is and this is where we want to go 14:25:00 ... And then these are operational principles of where we want to go 14:25:16 ... A bunch of this is background 14:25:28 ... Note this proposal is just a draft, I'm not tied to the text, just wanted to take a stab at it 14:25:36 ... Halfway through W3C it changes from Background of W3C to Future of W3C 14:25:46 ... and I do think, because this was strong feedback, that it's important for us to say 14:25:51 ... "this is how we can tell if we're doing it right" 14:25:56 ... That piece has to be there somewhere 14:26:10 ... Are we being inclusive? Are we being principled? Are we making the Web better? 14:26:19 ... probably not captured well in that proposed text, but having that in there was intentional 14:26:27 q? 14:26:31 ack Avneesh 14:26:41 AvneeshSingh: Two points 14:26:51 AvneeshSingh: 1. Firstly, when we see Red Cross, MSF, etc. their mission 14:27:00 ... they're all working for something very obvious, welfare of human beings 14:27:07 qq+ 14:27:09 ... they just need to clarify their mission 14:27:21 ... ON the other hand, people outside W3C might not be so familar with what is the Web and what do we want to achieve 14:27:27 +1 to avneesh 14:27:32 ... many people don't even know difference between Web and Internet 14:27:43 present+ James_Rosewell 14:27:43 ... This is captured in the /TR, so that's why I think Future of W3C is included 14:27:43 present+ James_Rosewell 14:27:47 [James joins] 14:27:52 +1 to Avneesh making clear to those outside. Think of how few people know what we do (standards, web etc) 14:27:54 AvneeshSingh: 2. Critical thing, all the opinions that we have are people we know well 14:28:09 ... I really want to hear from people who are not in AB, who had some kind of different opinions when they saw the things that are fuzzy 14:28:13 ... e.g. "web is for humanity" 14:28:20 ... It would be good to hear their views before we finalize anything 14:28:47 chris: Wrt Red Cross, MSF< etc. I went through their documents 14:28:48 ... you would think they're working for something obvious, but their scope isn't obvious 14:28:52 ... and they don't talk about that 14:29:06 ... they don't say "this is what the world looks like to us", they just say "this is are role and what we do and how we do it" 14:29:12 ... your point about Web is less well-defined is valid 14:29:22 ... question I'll get to in a minute, is that the question we want to try to answer here? 14:29:34 ... are we talking about what is the vision of the Web here, in addition to operational principles of w3C/ 14:29:34 ack me 14:29:34 cwilso, you wanted to react to AvneeshSingh 14:29:41 ack fantasai 14:29:41 fantasai, you wanted to comment on mission 14:29:42 q+ 14:30:01 fantasai: just to reply to what you were just saying, i think that what we need is not the same as other orgs 14:30:08 jrosewell has joined #vision 14:30:13 present+ 14:30:32 ....we do need to define what w3c is in re: what the web is. we don't need to copy the format of other orgs self descriptions. we want one that works for what we're trying to accomplish 14:30:48 ... there was one change. to put a mission statement at the top of vision. that was a great move 14:31:16 ... i think we need to talk about what the mission statement is. Coralie put one on the web. you had another. there's another discussion to say what the mission is 14:31:21 ack next 14:31:39 [Max Gendler departs] 14:31:57 Ralph: I think it's useful for us to state our vision for the web. as it is not the goal of everyone 14:32:13 +1 to Ralph 14:32:22 ... as Avneesh said, to say what we think the web is. that helps refine our vision for what we are. then that helps us define our vision of what the web is 14:32:22 ack next 14:32:30 -> https://www.w3.org/mission/ W3C website > Our mission 14:32:46 Florian: some defining operational ideas only makes sense if we define values. eg: i18n 14:32:53 s/as it is not the goal/as it might not be the goal 14:33:01 ... it wouldn't make sense to have 18n review if we didn't hold that the web is for everyone 14:33:05 +1 14:33:15 ... it wouldn't make sense to have TAG if we were not trying to build one web 14:33:39 ack next 14:33:40 ...the way we work are inspired by how we see the web. it wouldn't need to be long. the oringail vision shows why we do things inspire the rest 14:33:41 fantasai, you wanted to point at Mozilla Manifesto again 14:33:52 q+ to ask for a poll 14:34:00 fantasai: I think this document would be very uninspiring. hard to relate to, as Florian said, if it was only operational principles 14:34:08 ... a vision should not be just operational. we need something grander 14:34:10 https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ 14:34:33 ... also I want to point out the Mozilla manifesto which is similar to what we're working on. they outline what the internet is and how they'll work on it 14:35:12 ...they are similar to us, unless Red Cross 14:35:12 q+ 14:35:12 s/is and/should be and/ 14:35:12 ack jr 14:35:12 s/unless/unlike/ 14:35:44 James: we have the WF and contract for the web to talk about use of technology 14:35:44 provide a neutral forum where organizations around the world come together to create the technologies to most fully realize the potential of the Web 14:35:44 s/would be very uninspiring/would be very uninspiring if it were just operational principles/ 14:35:47 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/12/2023-10207/notice-pursuant-to-the-national-cooperative-research-and-production-act-of-1993-world-wide-web 14:35:48 ... .W3C is a neutral forum to create tech for the web. that's the text giving to filing at justice dept 14:36:09 ... that should guide us, we're not able to have the vision for the Contract for the web or WF. unlike non technical standards bodies 14:36:25 ...as we refine this, we should reflect the needs of tech standards bodies 14:36:28 q+ 14:36:36 ack amy 14:36:46 https://webfoundation.org/ 14:36:49 https://contractfortheweb.org/ 14:36:55 amy: To respond to point about Contract for the Web, it's a now-closed program done by Web Foundation 14:37:01 ... doesn't have the weight of 28-year-old organization 14:37:14 ... the Web Foundation also has its own place, it has things it thinks are important, but it's a separate body from us 14:37:31 ... it's irresponsible to offload the responsibility to think about these things, the expertise that this group has in talking about the Web 14:37:37 +1 to amy 14:37:42 ... we don't need to offload the ethics or understanding to a group with which we are only loosely related 14:37:48 +1 Amy 14:37:53 +1 Amy 14:37:58 ... I think the depth of thought, experience, and the simple fact that the people here are *building* the tech for the Web 14:38:06 ... we have responsibility to address this 14:38:08 ... We are not a machine. 14:38:22 ... You mention Justice Dept. But we got a tax status as a group that works for the good of the public 14:38:27 ... we now have a legal responsibility for that. 14:38:29 +1 14:38:42 +1 14:38:43 q+ 14:38:51 ack cw 14:38:51 cwilso, you wanted to ask for a poll 14:38:51 cwilso: as we are chartered to do for good of the public, we ought to define what that means 14:38:57 ... and that's what EWP does in detail 14:39:08 ... to a much higher level of detail, that's what Vision for WWW in /TR is talking about 14:39:22 ... I do want to underscore one phrase in the document, which is "technology is not neutral" 14:39:27 +1 to 'technology is not neutral" 14:39:31 +1 14:39:35 ... you can't purely talk about technology and recognize that in something longstanding like Web it will have many impacts and effects 14:39:44 ... I wouldn't want to lose that line, I think it's critically important 14:40:05 cwilso: I did want to ask as a poll... 14:40:20 POLL: Do we think we should be clearly defining the "Vision of the Web" here? [+1/0/-1] 14:40:35 q+ 14:40:40 chris: Should we have that section in the document, here. 14:40:46 q+ 14:40:46 I am happy to have the nuance of the W3C's vision for the web. we are not trying to say what it is for others 14:40:48 ... we might be relying on EWP as underpinnings, but we want to have it in this document 14:40:49 +1, and we can call it our Vision of the Web 14:40:51 qq+ 14:40:59 *The* vision or *Our* vision ? 14:41:00 ack koalie 14:41:00 koalie, you wanted to react to cwilso 14:41:18 koalie: Do you have multiple questions to poll? maybe impact each other 14:41:26 chris: I would encourage asking questions 14:41:52 chris: rewrite just says web is defined in EWP. Doesn't state unequivocably things like "web must be safe for users" etc. 14:42:10 ack next 14:42:14 "provide a neutral forum where organizations around the world come together to create the technologies to most fully realize the potential of the Web" 14:42:27 jrosewell: Wrt neutral, you made the point about neutral technology. I hope we can agree that W3C as a forum must be neutral 14:42:28 we are a vendor neutral forum 14:42:29 q+ to talk about neutral 14:42:38 ... if we can't agree as far as forum, that would be a significant challenge 14:42:38 vq? 14:42:54 jrosewell: Wrt tech being neutral, we're excluding ppl from the standards process 14:43:03 q+ 14:43:04 ... if you just say "be good" or "consider this" then it becomes hard to [missed] 14:43:13 ... so I remain concerned about EWP, not just because it's exclusionary 14:43:22 ... but also because a vision should stand on its own and not need to reference other things 14:43:29 ... mission of W3C should be to set standards 14:43:37 ... agreed with competition parameters 14:43:48 ... when it comes to broad question of ethics, they belong elsewhere not here 14:44:00 ack amy 14:44:00 amy, you wanted to react to jrosewell 14:44:09 W3C is a vendor neutral forum 14:44:10 amy: We are a vendor-neutral forum 14:44:15 zakim, allow each speaker 2 minutes 14:44:15 ok, cwilso 14:44:18 ack ralph 14:44:23 Ralph: I was reacting to the precise phrasing of your proposed poll, Chris 14:44:29 ... I wanted to re-emphasize what I was saying earlier 14:44:44 ... that I think it's important for what's currently section 3 of draft, for us to say what *our* vision for the Web is 14:44:49 ... not the only vision 14:44:55 ... but important for us to do the best we can 14:44:57 +1 to Ralph's point about *our* Vision for the web 14:45:00 ... to find consensus language for what our vision is 14:45:01 +1 to Ralph 14:45:01 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/w3c-vision/#vision-web section 3 of the published draft: vision for the WWW 14:45:02 +1 14:45:10 Ralph: leads me to point about jrosewell, if we can define what our vision is 14:45:15 ... that will help us state what our values are 14:45:25 q+ 14:45:28 ... and we are a forum where anybody is welcome to come participate and express their disagreement with our vision or values 14:45:34 qq+ 14:45:36 +1 Ralph 14:45:39 ... but it's important for us to say up front, this is our vision and our values 14:45:55 ... as it results in the technical standards we produce at the end 14:45:59 +1 Ralph to stating clearly what the organization vision is 14:46:05 +1 14:46:09 ... technology itself is not neutral, so it's important that we be an open forum where anyone can make their comments 14:46:16 ... but we still have a vision, and values that will lead us towards that vision 14:46:44 ack cw 14:46:44 cwilso, you wanted to react to Ralph 14:46:46 cwilso: ... 14:46:53 cwilso: You made a comment about vision and stating values 14:46:57 ... values are embedded in the vision 14:47:07 ... and part of problem was we were just giving additional detail in the values in section 5 14:47:11 s/: .../: it's important what Ralph said: "our" vision of the WWW/ 14:47:19 ... redefining the vision and maybe combining would work together 14:47:27 ack next 14:47:27 Ralph: There are documents which go into even more detail 14:47:34 I'd like us to retain the text in section 3 in the current /TR draft. I think the direction Chris was taking with his proposed draft is good, and I like Elika's suggestion in #108 to approach by making changes one by one 14:47:53 AvneeshSingh: Ralph has said very wonderfully our objective, question should be to ask "should we put in what W3C and Web should be" 14:48:01 ... it is important not to keep the frame of mind of the existing /TR document 14:48:06 ... looking at it as a blank slate 14:48:19 ack next 14:48:20 ... does the community think that we should have a note, line, bullet points for what W3C/Web should be 14:49:02 ack next 14:49:05 florian, you wanted to talk about neutral 14:49:09 fantasai: I think that there's a lot of support for the short summary of the most important things 14:49:16 florian: As Amy said, we're vendor-neutral 14:49:21 ... that doesn't mean we should have no effect on anybody 14:49:26 ... and we don't affect anyone 14:49:33 ... only way to do this is not to do anything at all 14:49:42 +1 florian 14:49:47 ... Some companies might prefer interop, some might prefer fractioning 14:49:53 s/we are a vendor/ we are a vendor/ 14:49:57 +1 to Ralph's idea that this should describe W3C's vision for the web. 14:49:58 ... Some companies want to sell lead paint 14:50:07 ... Companies ... 14:50:10 s/W3C is a vendor neutral/ W3C is a vendor neutral/ 14:50:15 ... What we shouldn't do is favor this company because it's this company 14:50:28 +1 florian 14:50:31 s/+1 to Ralph's/ +1 to Ralph's/ 14:50:31 ... But anything we do affects technological landscape, and that will have an effect 14:50:36 ... We are vendor-neutral 14:50:49 ... but we're not equally happy to standardize both internationalization of web pages and chemical weapons 14:50:54 ... We just don't pick winners 14:50:58 ack next 14:51:06 ... It's important to say we're vendor-neutral, but also not to stretch its meaning 14:51:11 + to neutral is important but it does not stretch past our values/ethics 14:51:22 s/I am happy to have/ I am happy to have/ 14:51:25 wendyreid: Yes, the justice dept forum says we provide a neutral forum, and that is what we do 14:51:27