Vision TF meeting

Different Approachs to Vision

Agenda: Different approaches to Vision Edit https://www.w3.org/TR/w3c-vision/ or https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/blob/2e9e600afbf632a45ea816f31514a07f48ffd760/Vision/proposal.md

<koalie> Previous (2023-07-13)

<cwilso> w3c/AB-public#102

Chris: I will chair the call. Tzviya is away. This is a continuation of our meeting from last time.
… We do now have a published version of the Vision on /TR as a Note and have seen comments which is great.
... I think the issue that kicked this off, started because several of us, Tzviya, Robin etc, thought it had gotten unwieldy in the document.
… It's not clear how they interrelated and how they 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,
… to make them simpler and more explainable. This is the mission of W3C.
… When we looked at similar documents, most of these eg: Red Cross or DWB,
… they were focused on the mission, not the vision. For the scope
… we thought it would be better to focus on how the W3C should operate.
… Not just those that touch on the web. It is not perfect yet.
... I haven't had a chance to restructure yet. Tzviya linked in the agenda.
… We discussed this and had push back as we hadn't published anything.
... I wanted to ask about this one vs. the current TR.
… I'm encouraging people to weigh in and suggest which paths we should go down. I feel I need direction.
… I feel issues we're seeing are wording or disagreements. Some will cycle down into counterproductivty
... like tweaking one word and there are nuances people argue about. I note that last night Elika filed some feedback.

<cwilso> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/blob/2e9e600afbf632a45ea816f31514a07f48ffd760/Vision/proposal.md

<cwilso> https://w3c.github.io/AB-public/Vision

<koalie> published note

<cwilso> w3c/AB-public#108

<fantasai> My comments

fantasai: I have comments but wrote them down here:

<fantasai> At a high level, the changes I see are:
Remove the “Intention” section
Remove the “Vision for the World Wide Web” section.
Adjust some wording in the first part of the “Introduction” section.
Revise the last few paragraphs of the “Introduction” section.
Add a new “The W3C” section.
Combine “Vision for W3C” and “Principles and Values” into a single section.

Chris:  Why don't we come back to that?

<Zakim> 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

Amy: I really thought that the original Vision as it was written was great.
… I can see why we want to change
… but I appreciated having a Vision to what W3C could be in relation to the Web.
… Not saying how the Web should be, but how W3C should be.
… I can see Chris's point for saying focus on what we do.
… I see the usefulness of that.
… But I miss the high-level Vision, which was succinctly and beautifully said.
... It's good to have the Vision and EWP, both are valuable. Am I correct EWP isn't REC-track?
… Both are good, and solid.
… I would hate to lose the practicality of the second version
… but it's valuable for us, lacking Tim as the founding Director now, to ask how we interact with the world and principles; and 
… to have outlined, in a formal way, to able to point to public, what we're doing here.

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to amy to respond to EWP REC-track

Chris: EWP is currently a note from the TAG.
… Their stated goal is to put it on the Statement track
... So it would be Rec track. though it's not Rec.
… I do think their method of developing that is more TAG centric than the TF here.

Avneesh: I think that it would be very helpful if we had discussion on main principles of what we want to achieve.
… Then we can go from there. One main principle was that we'll focus on role of W3C vs. what the Web should be.
… Second is that we provide a basis for the community for making decisions.
… The other two, if we have agreement, improving text would be easier.

<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to support amy

fantasai: I want to say +1 to Amy. The previous version, it's not a replacement of EWP
… but a summary of Vision of Web in 4 bullet points was a good capture of what we're doing here. It puts the rest of the Vision in context.
… The goal was to help guide decision making. Why are these our guiding principles? It does not replace EWP.
… They go into details, they are comprehensive. If we want a Vision for W3C we need a direction to go in and that intro stated it very clearly and powerfully.

Wendy: I think agree with both Elika and Amy. Looking at the 2 documents, one thing I like about the published version is
… it's very easy to read. There is mix of paragraphs. It is long. The rewrite does the job of making it shorter.
... But the bullets make it very, very clear what this is. If you only skim those you take away a lot of what we are.
… 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.

<fantasai> +1 wendyreid, it feels a lot easier to read

Chris:  Should we keep alphabetization?

Wendy:  Yes. keep the 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.
… Because we have Vision and principles and values broken out it's more clear and parse-able.

<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to summarize my feedback

<fantasai> w3c/AB-public#108

fantasai: I agree with what Wendy said. Also I went through both documents and some text is in common and the new one has sections that were dropped.
… Summarizing my comments I wrote up, there was an intention section that I think is worth keeping.
... It does a good job of saying what the document is aiming to do. It explains what it is for and guides how we evolve this document.
… It's important. If we write marketing copy it won't go there but for technical.
… I think the first part is background not intro.
… The 1st paragraph flows more smoothly. The last section felt a little awkward with new paragraphs but could be improved.
… I'm not sure what section "W3C" was trying to do. The 1st section "founded for" is great.
… Then it said "we must do these" then talked about impact but I'm not sure why that's in the  intro or what that is to accomplish there.
… I'd like an explanation of what you're thinking.
... I think the Vision for W3C is brilliant. It's compelling. It makes you care to read the rest.
… You combine vision/values/principles which is ok but I feel the text got convolated and harder to scan.
… I think points we did want to keep got lost.
… I think this is a good approach and we should keep going, working on those sections but I think we're not there yet.
… I want to understand for the substantial changes what did you think? Why change this to that?
… There are a lot of changes i don't understand the thinking.

<fantasai> https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/DNOTE-w3c-vision-20230725/#intention

<fantasai> https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/DNOTE-w3c-vision-20230725/#vision-web

Florian: I would also like to argue to keep the vision for the web section on a different logic.
… I think we've been talking, not just here, but defining the web is hard. It does give defining characteristics of the web,
… something that would not target humanity. That would not be interoperable web, safety of users.
… Even if the boundary of what isn't is fuzzy, it's good to say things that broadly match, that belong here. Others don't.
… Outlining that is helpful. When we think of a new technological area, if we have questions if it's developing in a way
… without going into detail, a basic principle, "this is web like" and belongs. It may be  included in principles and we can have other docs like EWP but broad strokes is helpful.
… It's not long.

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to discuss fantasai's high level points

Chris: I will attempt to explain some of the changes. This has been helpful so far.
... The goal of a lot of what this was trying to do is recognizing that what we have

fantasai:  No, I think it's important.

Chris:  For the Introduction, I note WWW and W3C are separate subsections of Introduction.
… We already had these to say what Web is, and this is what W3C is doing for the Web.
… It's an attempt to clarify.
… So some past history and background of the Web.
… Then roll into this is where W3C came from, where it is and this is where we want to go.
… And then these are operational principles of where we want to go.
… A bunch of this is background.
… Note this proposal is just a draft, I'm not tied to the text, just wanted to take a stab at it.
… Halfway through W3C it changes from Background of W3C to Future of W3C.
… And I do think, because this was strong feedback, that it's important for us to say
… "this is how we can tell if we're doing it right."
… That piece has to be there somewhere.
… Are we being inclusive? Are we being principled? Are we making the Web better?
… It's probably not captured well in that proposed text, but having that in there was intentional.

AvneeshSingh: Two points: 
... 1. Firstly, when we see Red Cross, MSF, etc, their mission,
… they're all working for something very obvious: the welfare of human beings.
… They just need to clarify their mission.
… On the other hand, people outside W3C might not be so familiar with what is the Web and what do we want to achieve.
... Many people don't even know difference between Web and Internet.
… This is captured in the /TR, so that's why I think Future of W3C is included.
... 2. A critical thing, all the opinions that we have are from people we know well.
… 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.
… E.g. "web is for humanity"
… It would be good to hear their views before we finalize anything.

<florian> +1 to avneesh

<Ralph> [James joins]

<amy>+1 to Avneesh making clear to those outside. Think of how few people know what we do (standards, web etc)

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to AvneeshSingh

Chris: With regard to Red Cross, MSF, etc. I went through their documents.
… You would think they're working for something obvious, but their scope isn't obvious.
… And they don't talk about that.
… They don't say "this is what the world looks like to us", they just say "this is our role and what we do and how we do it."
… Your point about Web as less well-defined is valid.
… A question I'll get to in a minute, is that the question we want to try to answer here?
… Are we talking about what is the vision of the Web here, in addition to operational principles of W3C?

<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to comment on mission

fantasai:  Just to reply to what you were just saying, I think that what we need is not the same as other organizations.
… We do need to define what W3C is in re: what the web is. We don't need to copy the format of other organizations' self descriptions. We want one that works for what we're trying to accomplish.
… There was one change, to put a mission statement at the top of the Vision. That was a great move.
… 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.

<koalie> W3C website > Our mission

<koalie> [Max Gendler departs]

Ralph: I think it's useful for us to state our Vision for the web as it might not be the goal of everyone.
... 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 W3C is.

<Dingwei> +1 to Ralph

Florian:  Some defining operational ideas only makes sense if we define values. For eg: i18n.
… It wouldn't make sense to have i18n review if we didn't hold that the web is for everyone.
... It wouldn't make sense to have TAG if we were not trying to build one web.
… The way we work is inspired by how we see the web. It wouldn't need to be long. The original Vision shows why we do things inspire the rest.

<fantasai> +1

<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to point at Mozilla Manifesto again

fantasai: I think this document would be very uninspiring if it were just operational principles. It would be hard to relate to, as Florian said, if it was only operational principles.
… A vision should not be just operational. We need something grander.
... Also I want to point out the Mozilla manifesto which is similar to what we're working on. They outline what the Internet should be and how they'll work on it.
… They are similar to us, unlike the Red Cross.

<fantasai>  https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/

James:   We have the Web Foundation and Contract for the Web to talk about the use of technology.
... W3C is a neutral forum to create technology for the web. That's what's in the text giving to filing at Justice Department.
… That should guide us, we're not able to have the Vision for the Contract for the web or Web Foundation. Unlike non technical standards bodies.
… As we refine this, we should reflect the needs of tech standards bodies.

<jrosewell> provide a neutral forum where organizations around the world come together to create the technologies to most fully realize the potential of the Web

<jrosewell> 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

<jrosewell> https://webfoundation.org/

<jrosewell> https://contractfortheweb.org/

Amy: To respond to the point about Contract for the Web, that's a now-closed program done by the Web Foundation.
… It doesn't have the weight of a 28-year-old organization.
… The Web Foundation also has its own place. It has things it thinks are important, but it's a separate body from us.
… It's irresponsible to offload the responsibility to think about these things, especially with the expertise that this group has, in talking about the Web.
... We don't need to offload the ethics or understanding to a group with which we are only loosely related.
... I think with the depth of thought, experience, and the simple fact that the people here are *building* the tech for the Web,
… we have responsibility to address this.
… We are not a machine.
… You mention the Justice Department but we just got a tax status as a group that works for the good of the public.
… We now have a legal responsibility for that.

<wendyreid> +1 Amy

<florian> +1 to amy

<koalie> +1 Amy

<wendyreid> +1 Amy

<cwilso> +1

<fantasai>   +1

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to ask for a poll

cwilso:  As we are chartered to do for good of the public, we ought to define what that means
… and that's what EWP does in detail.
… To a much higher level of detail, that's what Vision for WWW in /TR is talking about.
… I do want to underscore one phrase in the document, which is "technology is not neutral."
... You can't purely talk about technology and recognize that in some thing longstanding like Web it will have many impacts and effects.
… I wouldn't want to lose that line, I think it's critically important.
... I did want to ask as a poll...
...Should we have that section in the document, here?
We might be relying on EWP as underpinnings, but we want to have it in this document

<fantasai> +1 to 'technology is not neutral"

<wendyreid> +1

<amy> +1 to 'technology is not neutral"

<wendyreid> +1

<florian> +1, and we can call it our Vision of the Web

<Ralph> *The* vision or *Our* vision ?

<amy> 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

<cwilso> POLL: Do we think we should be clearly defining the "Vision of the Web" here? [+1/0/-1]

<Zakim> koalie, you wanted to react to cwilso

koalie: Do you have multiple questions to poll? It may be they impact each other.

Chris: I would encourage asking questions.
... The rewrite just says the web is defined in EWP.  It doesn't state unequivocally things like "the web must be safe for users" etc.

<jrosewell> "provide a neutral forum where organizations around the world come together to create the technologies to most fully realize the potential of the Web"

jrosewell: Wrt neutral, you made the point about neutral technology. I hope we can agree that W3C as a forum must be neutral.
... If we can't agree as far as forum, that would be a significant challenge.
... With regard to tech being neutral, we're excluding people from the standards process.
… If you just say "be good" or "consider this" then it becomes hard to [missed].
… So I remain concerned about EWP, not just because it's exclusionary
… but also because a Vision should stand on its own and not need to reference other things.
… The mission of W3C should be to set standards,
… agreed with competition parameters.
… When it comes to broad question of ethics, they belong elsewhere not here.

<Zakim> amy, you wanted to react to jrosewell

<amy> W3C is a vendor neutral forum

Amy: We are a vendor-neutral forum.

Ralph: I was reacting to the precise phrasing of your proposed poll, Chris
… I wanted to re-emphasize what I was saying earlier
… 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..
… It's not the only vision,
… but it's important for us to do the best we can,
... to find consensus language for what our Vision is.

<amy> +1 to Ralph's point about *our* Vision for the web

<florian> +1 to Ralph

<koalie> section 3 of the published draft: vision for the WWW

<cwilso> +1

Ralph:  This leads me to point about jrosewell, if we can define what our Vision is
… that will help us state what our values are.
… And we are a forum where anybody is welcome to come participate and express their disagreement with our vision or values.
... But it's important for us to say up front:  this is our vision and our values
… as it results in the technical standards we produce at the end.
... Technology itself is not neutral, so it's important that we be an open forum where anyone can make their comments
… but we still have a vision, and values that will lead us towards that vision.

<koalie> +1 Ralph

<amy> +1 Ralph to stating clearly what the organization vision is

<cwilso> +1

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to Ralph

cwilso:  It's important what Ralph said: "our" vision of the WWW.
... You made a comment about Vision and stating values.
… Values are embedded in the Vision
… and part of problem was we were just giving additional detail in the values in section 5,
… redefining the vision and maybe combining would work together.

Ralph: There are documents which go into even more detail.

<cpn> 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

AvneeshSingh: Ralph has said very wonderfully our objective, the question should be to ask "should we put in what W3C and Web should be?"
… It is important not to keep the frame of mind of the existing /TR document
… looking at it as a blank slate.
… Does the community think that we should have a note, line, bullet points for what W3C/Web should be?

<Zakim> florian, you wanted to talk about neutral

fantasai: I think that there's a lot of support for the short summary of the most important things.

Florian: As Amy said, we're vendor-neutral
… that doesn't mean we should have no effect on anybody
… and we don't affect anyone.
… The only way to do this is not to do anything at all.
... Some companies might prefer interop, some might prefer fractioning.

<cwilso> +1 florian

<amy> +1 to neutrality important but it does not stretch past our values/ethics

<AramZS> +1 florian

<cwilso> +1

wendyreid: Yes, the Justice Dept form says we provide a neutral forum, and that is what we do.
... anyone can come to W3C, can bring proposals, can file issues, can participate in discussions.
… We welcome that, always have.
… However, there are limits, and this is true of every organization.
… We have a Code of Conduct, Process,
… guidelines and principles from TimBL.
… Our Vision should help us continue to do that.
… If someone reads our Vision and disagrees with EWP, I'm fine with them not wanting hang out with us.
… I think we can say we have values, and we have a Vision, and if people disagree with our Vision they don't have to participate.
… But I think having a clear Vision is important.
… And I think it puts our position up front and let's people decide for themselves.

<amy> +1 to say if someone disagrees with Vision and EWP that's fine and they don't have to participate

jrosewell:  I want to respond on 2 points, those of you asserting W3C are vendor-neutral
… need to look at first-party vs third-party.

Ralph: That's out of scope for this meeting.

jrosewell: It's important to the question, people have asserted we're vendor-neutral and it's not a case.

wendyreid: I work on business-to-business, and I disagree also.

[various disagreement]

jrosewell: [missed]

jrosewell:  Whether in the SecPriv questionnaire, in practice it's not vendor neutral.

<AramZS> I disagree with jrosewell's framing here

cwilso: I suggest you capture that in a separate document.
… I don't believe it's true.

Ralph: Either way it's out of scope for this conversation.

jrosewell: When we look at inclusion and people coming forward, and Wendy's statement for ethics,
… to exclude people based on ethical issue is not OK. Organization needs to be neutral and open to all.
… We should not exclude people based on their ethics.

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to jrosewell

cwilso: I think that I slightly disagree with how Wendy put our neutrality.
… We don't force people not to show up
… if they disagree.
… But the standards we produce should follow those principles and values.
… This is not the only standards organization that works on the Web; 
… IETF, WHATWG, ECMA define parts of the Web.
… The standards we define in W3C are voluntary.
… This is not the regulatory body of the web.

<Zakim> f, you wanted to break down some actionable questions

https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/DNOTE-w3c-vision-20230725/#vision-web

fantasai: I want us to get somewhere based on this discussion. i think we can break things into a bunch of questions.
... The first is should we keep section 3 as it is here. I suggest we run a poll on that.
… Coralie do you want all questions first?

Coralie: I prefer we have all so our question are informed.

<fantasai>: 

1. Should we remove the Intention section

2. Should we remove the Vision for the WWW section

3. Should we accept the rewrite of the Intro?

4. Should combine the Vision for W3C and Principles and Values section similar to how Chris did (but not necessary that wording)?

POLL: Should we keep https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/DNOTE-w3c-vision-20230725/#vision-web

<wendyreid> +1 Elika

<florian> +1

<wendyreid> +1

<fantasai> +1

<koalie> +1

<AramZS> +1

<cpn> +1

<jrosewell> -1

<Dingwei> +1

<fantasai>+1

<hsano> 0

Chris: I we are short on time I'd like to keep the first?

<Ralph> +1 to retain as a section, the content can still be updated

<cwilso> +1

<amy> I like Ralph's nuance of retaining the section with the option to update

cwilso: Sounds like a good place to stop for the day. Will take as input to draft in various ways
… see you all next time.