13:48:20 RRSAgent has joined #vision 13:48:24 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/08/24-vision-irc 13:48:30 zakim, prepare meeting 13:48:30 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:48:31 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), amy 13:48:36 Meeting: Vision TF meeting 13:48:48 agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/VisionTF/2023-08-24 13:49:40 agenda+ PR 111 13:53:59 -> https://www.w3.org/2023/08/10-vision-minutes.html Previous (2023-08-10) 13:58:05 /me https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/111 13:59:08 gendler has joined #vision 13:59:12 Chair: Tzivya 13:59:16 present+ 13:59:35 present+ ChrisW, Tzviya, Max 13:59:45 present+ Coralie 14:00:27 cpn has joined #vision 14:00:59 igarashi has joined #vision 14:01:07 present+ 14:01:23 scribe: amy 14:01:37 hsano has joined #vision 14:01:47 present+ 14:01:53 scribenick: fantasai 14:01:55 scribe: fantasai 14:01:59 present+ 14:02:08 present+ 14:02:22 present+ 14:02:35 jrosewell has joined #vision 14:02:35 present+ 14:02:41 present+ 14:02:41 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/111 14:02:43 tzviya: Only thing on the agenda is this PR 14:03:09 wendyreid has joined #vision 14:03:31 ... this is taking the published document and working through some of the proposed changes we had talked about in the MD document previous 14:03:38 ... Chris, do you want to introduce? 14:04:18 cwilso: This was a bit of a rewrite of the rewrite, because I did just graft into Bikeshed version 14:04:18 ... tried to take MD changes and apply to Bikeshed 14:04:18 ... I tried to explain the rationale for those pieces as I went 14:04:18 ... towards the end, more significant changes 14:04:24 ... I did take guidance from a number of different places, comments on previous PR, issues filed with feedback on that 14:04:33 ... and went back and looked at things filed that I could resolve 14:04:37 ... These are all in the comments 14:04:58 cwilso: The easiest way to look at this is the built version 14:05:22 ... it's good to read through commentary, but if you want to see the result or the diffs, there's links at the top 14:05:29 -> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/111.html preview 14:05:30 cwilso: Goal was to reduce number of section, and make clearer what each section is 14:05:37 ... I reduced the "How W3C Views the Web" 14:05:49 ... this section talked about what the Web is for all humanity, etc. 14:05:50 AvneeshSingh has joined #vision 14:05:56 present+ 14:05:59 ... One of the comments about last version was that I had removed that section and was too aggressive 14:06:20 cwilso: Most of focus in this was on how W3C views itself, and to operational principles 14:06:28 cwilso: I'm not sure we want to go through each section or comments? 14:06:35 ... or if ppl want to talk about specific areas 14:06:48 ... It's a fairly major rewrite, and incorporates a lot of guidance 14:06:51 q? 14:06:54 ack fantasai 14:07:11 q+ 14:07:22 tantek has joined #vision 14:08:16 present+ 14:08:26 q? 14:08:42 fantasai: I think that we should view by pull request not as total. there are some issues to be addressed 1 by 1 14:08:43 q+ 14:08:46 Dingwei has joined #vision 14:08:46 ack cwilso 14:08:49 fantasai: I think it would help to split out the PR. Instead of asking for us to merge one big PR. 14:08:53 present+ 14:09:00 ... there are many different independent changes here 14:09:03 ... should discuss separately 14:09:13 ... e.g. Mission statement is important to add, but needs some discussions 14:09:27 q? 14:09:32 cwilso: Some of it could be split out, yeah. Main motivation behind this was that the document we had before ... it didn't have the impact we were looking for 14:09:37 ... and a lot of that was around the structure 14:09:42 ... this meant a lot of small changes 14:09:48 ... and re-orient things 14:10:09 ... don't want to split into small changes because you can't see the whole result 14:10:22 ... e.g. paragraph about "this document not intended to be an operational strategy" deletion 14:10:38 ... if you have a separate PR, seems like a question by itself, not related to overall goal of making the whole thing more readable 14:10:56 ack AvneeshSingh 14:10:59 present+ 14:11:00 ... particularly operational principles, can't split out individually and see the result 14:11:10 I would be comfortable pulling out the mission to work on but would be pretty happy to have the rest as one issue 14:11:18 AvneeshSingh: Good thing would be to focus on structure and invest the time of this call in verifying that all of us are good with structure, or if we want improvement 14:11:23 ... I like this new structure 14:11:39 ... if we can focus on structure, it may take months or years to get the perfect text which can take months or years 14:11:41 +1 to liking the structure 14:11:42 q+ 14:11:50 ack tantek 14:12:06 tantek: I've also had a chance to review document, and new structure, and huge kudos to Chris for a much more smoothly flowing structure 14:12:10 ... it feels more approachable 14:12:16 +1 to kudos to Chris 14:12:20 ... and contents feel true to prior revisions 14:12:27 q+ 14:12:29 s/+1 to liking the structure/ +1 to liking the structure 14:12:31 ... I can tell this was a very difficult edit/rewrite 14:12:34 ... big thumbs up 14:12:36 cwilso++ 14:12:36 cwilso++ 14:12:37 cwilso++ 14:12:37 cwilso++ 14:12:37 ack florian 14:13:12 florian: I appreciate Chris's point about the intent being one reorg and being hard to split 14:13:12 ... at the same time there are small changes, e.g. rename a title 14:13:12 ... This is an independent change 14:13:19 ... It's quite reasonable to see the entirety of it, and say that it's moving in the right direction 14:13:29 ... but so many things changing at once, hard to say that all are positive changes 14:13:33 ... not losing anything that was good 14:13:52 ... to the extent that it can be split up, makes it easier to evaluate each chunk and say "this is definitely better, let's land it" 14:14:10 ... maybe we can land the whole thing, but then we need to open issues about reverting for where we lost stuff 14:14:16 ... so if it could be broken up, I would appreciate as well 14:14:57 Ralph: I appreciate that approach Elika and Florian said, but part of the struggle in this TF is that there are some high-level things that we need to get in place 14:15:06 ... we can refocus on specific sentences in specific sections 14:15:10 +1 Ralph 14:15:25 ... I would prefer to do adopt all the changes in one go, and acknowledge that we may discover that we lost some text that was important 14:15:25 q+ to note if folks see things missing that were in prior versions that we should have kept, I would welcome those being filed as individual issues/PRs. Similarly for language tweaks. 14:15:28 ... and go back and re-insert that text 14:15:30 +1 Ralph 14:15:34 +1 Ralph 14:15:34 ... we can still refine this, this isn't a technical spec 14:15:46 +1 Ralph 14:15:50 Proposal: Move forward with general direction of this revision 14:15:59 ack Ralph 14:16:13 Ralph: I also applaud Chris's efforts, and would like to incorporate in one fell swoop and tweak further 14:16:27 +1 to moving forward with the general direction of this revision -1 to merging this PR 14:16:33 +1 14:16:34 +1 14:16:36 0 14:16:37 +1 14:16:40 +1 14:16:40 +1 to moving forward with the general direction 14:16:40 0 14:16:43 +1 14:16:43 +1 14:16:44 +1 to accept this PR 14:16:44 +1 14:16:44 s/+1 to moving/ +1 to moving/ 14:16:44 +1 14:16:44 +1 14:17:22 Dingwei has joined #vision 14:17:27 q+ 14:17:49 [my 0 = would have preferred a more granular approach, but accepts the arguments for doing it this way] 14:18:02 cwilso: I should be clear, none of this is final changes. I'm now going to consider this ground to b eheld 14:18:05 ack cwilso 14:18:06 ... this was attempt to refactor 14:18:19 ... structure we had before, I felt like we were just continually bikeshedding each word, but not improving overall document 14:18:40 ... We still have a lot of work to do to make it more understandable, especially to ppl whose first language isn't English 14:18:52 ... but those changes should still happen 14:18:59 ... if there are individual changes here that are not a good idea, should discuss those 14:19:11 ... There are a bunch of things commented in the PR that I have incorporated 14:19:20 ... and more I didn't see recently 14:19:31 ... Wrt mission statement, if ppl feel we should do separate effort, can talk about it 14:19:42 +1 to pulling out the mission but agree it's good to declare here 14:19:43 ... I don't think it's final either, but do think it's good to have that declared in this document. 14:19:53 +1 to what amy said 14:19:53 q? 14:20:30 qq+ fantasai 14:20:48 ack fantasai 14:20:48 fantasai, you wanted to react to cwilso 14:20:55 fantasai: i'm not objecting because it's not split out. i'm objecting bc going line by line i see recursions 14:21:01 qq_ 14:21:04 qq++ 14:21:08 ack cwilso 14:21:10 q- + 14:21:11 s/recursions/regression/s 14:21:13 s/recur/regres/ 14:21:17 ... there are already problems. if we do line by line we can land pieces. but if we want to keep as one there will be regressions 14:21:31 cwilso: You used the word "regression", and there are places where you commented on linguistic consistency 14:21:38 ... those are still things I'd like to address 14:21:43 q+ to recommend opening issues before merging 14:21:44 ... but clear regressions, that's a problem 14:21:52 ... but other changes were intentional 14:21:54 qq+ fantasai 14:21:55 q+ 14:21:59 ack tantek 14:21:59 tantek, you wanted to note if folks see things missing that were in prior versions that we should have kept, I would welcome those being filed as individual issues/PRs. Similarly 14:22:02 ... for language tweaks. 14:22:27 tantek: I don't disagree that there are potential things that are not as good or may have left things out from previous draft 14:22:45 ... but I feel comfortable moving forward with this with the explicit acknowledgement that we can file regression issues 14:22:53 ... I trust cwilso to treat those at a high priority 14:23:01 ... that's why I'm comfortable to make this the new baseline 14:23:09 ... I don't see anything that's blocking 14:23:21 ... fantasai, can you specifically iterate the things that are actually blocking? 14:23:23 +1 to Tantek's position 14:23:31 +1 to tantek 14:23:33 ack fantasai 14:23:33 fantasai, you wanted to react to cwilso 14:23:51 fantasai: i put comments in PR, we can go over them individually 14:23:55 tantek: just those blocking 14:24:16 fantasai: just restoring things which were lost. places where old wording was better of we lost something. or we introduced a new problem 14:24:28 tantek: Can we fix those later? 14:24:32 qq+ 14:24:33 tantek: even among those i'd like to divide into "fix in place" and "we must fix" 14:24:42 ack cwilso 14:24:42 cwilso, you wanted to react to fantasai 14:24:45 ... I appreciate individual attention to issues 14:25:07 s/better of/better or 14:25:29 Chris: there were things I addressed. others that i'm happy to put back in a tweak it. 14:25:32 cwilso: Some of the changes where I'm happy to put them back in and then tweak it, I was trying to reduce down the language as much as possible as well and still capture 14:25:36 ... and still some things missing 14:25:59 ... also "use consistent horizontal review" being a phrase that shouldn't be here, but that's in current document 14:26:00 present+ Dan_Appelquist 14:26:05 [Dan arrives] 14:26:15 ... what's the right balance of not dropping whole sections? 14:26:21 ... I think only one completely missing section 14:26:27 ack me 14:26:27 tzviya, you wanted to recommend opening issues before merging 14:27:03 tzviya: Can you open separate PRs for each of your comments, and then we can merge this? 14:27:12 s/PRs/issues/ 14:27:21 ack florian 14:27:26 florian: I voted 0 on the poll, and still there 14:27:40 ... In general, an ED should be just that and the thing from we we ask comments should be the thing we published 14:27:54 ... by that what I mean, if we land this PR it would be also appropriate to republish "this is our latest version, what do you think?" 14:28:03 DKA has joined #vision 14:28:09 ... so one question of merging, if we merge it and republish, are there changes that will cause problems to Comm team? 14:28:14 AramZS has joined #vision 14:28:21 ... or miscommunicate that we changed our minds about something 14:28:27 present+ 14:28:34 ... Alternatively, if we think this is worth presenting and asking for comments, then maybe it's ready to land 14:28:38 ack Ralph 14:28:38 Ralph, you wanted to consider "open issues before ..." 14:29:01 Ralph: I disagree, we have an ED is to allow the group working on the document to think about regressions and refinements 14:29:02 +1 to ralph 14:29:06 +1 Ralph 14:29:08 +1 14:29:17 ... we update ED to allow our conversation to proceed, and then periodically ask the question Florian just asked 14:29:22 +1 Ralph 14:29:27 +1 Ralph 14:29:28 ... so I don't agree that ED gets republished every time that you accept a PR 14:29:44 ... so I think asking to merge, and ask fantasai to file issues is reasonable approach 14:30:04 ... I don't know whether we lose ability to produce the diff here, if we can't save this diff... then let's make sure we don't lose it 14:30:17 Present+ Dan_Appelquist 14:30:22 q? 14:30:22 present+ 14:30:42 ... so urge fantasai to not block the PR, and accept that we'll address her comments after 14:30:44 q+ 14:30:51 ack cwilso 14:31:02 cwilso: I think that I've re-introduced all the parts that were deleted, so no complete bullet points that are missing now 14:31:24 ... there's still language that was commented on, and some of that definitely needs to be added as issues to discuss 14:31:54 fantasai: no (I'm not comfortable with it) but ok. I will file individual issues to make sure they are addressed 14:32:01 ... we lost consensus because it got merged 14:32:21 Chris: it got re-added. half of what you filed was "you lost this". reload the preview and you'll see it 14:32:30 ... i resolved most comments. comment handling is a little weird 14:32:41 Tzviya: Chris did a lot of edits yesterday 14:32:50 Chris: I did a lot of edits today 14:33:01 cwilso: There weren't just fantasai's comments, there were others as well 14:33:08 [Tantek departs] 14:33:27 q+ 14:33:42 tzviya: maybe chris can wait until later to day to merge this? 14:34:00 cwilso: I think I resolved by all of the comments ... one question about "respectful of users" to discuss 14:34:07 ... some other comments here about e.g. about word "ethical" 14:34:10 ... we might want to discuss 14:34:29 ... and some side issues from fantasai we should file issues on, and the two of us can walk through those to resolve 14:34:44 ... so 2 things to discuss today, which is "respectful of its users" because differing opinions 14:35:15 ack DKA 14:36:28 DKA: Want to discuss Dom's request to change, I support and agree with his point about the use of the word "ethical" 14:36:32 ... you'd think I wouldn't want to remove, but I agree with him about removing this word 14:36:32 tzviya: background? 14:36:32 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/111/files#r1302738211 14:36:32 s/but ok/but I can live with it/ 14:36:38 cwilso: In Mission statement, it says "to empower an ethical, equitable, empowered, and interconnected society" 14:36:38 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/111#pullrequestreview-1591150781 14:36:38 ... Dom says our work should be ethical, but unclear what an ethical society is 14:36:46 [Florian and PLH depart] 14:36:53 ... I'm still a little concerned, because I think a large part of what we're doing with this and EWP is to ensure that we are acting in the best interests of the Web 14:36:59 q+ to respond o that 14:37:01 q+ 14:37:02 [Florian returns] 14:37:05 +1 to including a note that we ARE working ethically. that ethics for working to the good are part of our vision 14:37:12 ... but this is a Mission statement that I wrote, and it did build on other ppl's work, but I would say this needs a bit more honing anyway 14:37:24 ack DKA 14:37:24 DKA, you wanted to respond o that 14:37:29 ... if there is a general feel that this word should remove for now, ok to merge during this merge file as issue if I think it's important to re-add 14:37:45 DKA: I'm author of Ethical Web Principles, and think this doc shoudl reinforce those principles 14:37:54 ... but I think the ethics here are the ethics of how we operate at W3C 14:38:09 ... rather than creating a more ethical society, or importing ethics outward from our scope 14:38:22 ... think it's better to remove, and unclear what it means in that context 14:38:25 ack AvneeshSingh 14:38:29 q+ to ask how we might point to "the web for the benefit of humanity" or "public good" if not "ethics" 14:38:29 ... we should be clear when talking about ethics what we mean 14:38:35 AvneeshSingh: I understand Dan's point. 14:38:44 ... Ethics are really subjective, need to specify what are the ethics 14:39:59 perhaps we reference the Ethical Web Principles as the definition here? 14:39:59 ... if we have list of ethics we support, that's fine, but having the word can have many different meanings for different people 14:39:59 q? 14:39:59 ack amy 14:39:59 amy, you wanted to ask how we might point to "the web for the benefit of humanity" or "public good" if not "ethics" 14:39:59 q? 14:39:59 q+ 14:39:59 amy: I do appreciate points here about use of term ethical 14:39:59 q+ 14:39:59 ... although there is a part of me that would like to find a different term we can use 14:39:59 ... so that we are nodding to the idea that the web should exist for the benefit of humanity, or that the work we do is for the public good 14:40:02 ... so slipperiness of "ethics" I can understand 14:40:05 "something something internationally recognised human rights" 14:40:07 ... but important to incldue something abou thtis 14:40:17 amy: Mission has bee "leading the web to its full potential" 14:40:30 ... this new mission is exciting, but we want one phrase for our mission 14:40:33 ack next 14:40:46 https://www.w3.org/mission/ states [Our mission] "W3C is leading the Web to its full potential by developing protocols and guidelines that ensure the long-term growth of the Web." 14:40:49 AramZS: Ethics can mean a lot of things, but it seems we have a specific definition in EPW 14:40:55 s/EPW/ 14:41:33 ... so maybe reference them somehow here 14:41:33 ack cwilso 14:41:33 +1 14:42:04 cwilso: Occurrance of ethics in Mission, I suggest I remove that word, and I'll file an issue something along the lines of "ensure ethical intent is well supported in the document" 14:42:04 q? 14:42:04 ... we may re-add word, or do something different elsewhere 14:42:04 ... not necessary now 14:42:04 +1 Chris 14:42:04 +1 chris 14:42:05 ... still do reference EWP as a basis, would not want to remove that 14:42:20 tzviya: I use "ethics" professionally, and it makes ppl uncomfortable or want more definition 14:42:23 ... so heads in right direction 14:42:43 cwilso: so unless objection I'll remove for now 14:42:46 +1 chris 14:42:58 +1 to Chris removing that for now 14:43:05 cwilso: Other was around "respectful of its users" 14:43:09 +1 Chris 14:43:13 [I note that it's good to remain in parallel with the first sentence of https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#intro ] 14:43:33 cwilso: [quotes document] 14:44:10 ... I changed this based on comment from Dom to "inclusive and respect the rights of all its users" 14:44:11 -> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/111#pullrequestreview-1592080419 Wendy's comment 14:44:14 q+ 14:44:23 ... wendy pushed back on this change 14:44:28 q+ to talk about rights 14:44:34 to echo Ralphs' point the fist sentence of the EWP is "The web should empower an equitable, informed and interconnected society." 14:44:40 s/fist/first 14:44:50 q+ 14:45:01 q? 14:45:07 q+ 14:45:15 fantasai: it should be "inclusive and respectful of it's users" 14:45:23 tzviya: [quotes text] 14:45:26 Chris: the original was "inclusive and respectful of it's users" 14:45:26 ack wendyreid 14:45:42 wendyreid: The wording of "respectful of" takes a broader meaning for respect 14:46:02 ... if you respect users, you respect their needs, rights, autonomy 14:46:10 ... but saying 'respect the rights', that narrows it down in a way I don't love 14:46:16 ... rights can be quite subjective 14:46:16 +1 to general respect 14:46:18 ... so prefer original wording 14:46:21 +1 14:46:22 ack DKA 14:46:22 DKA, you wanted to talk about rights 14:46:25 +! 14:46:26 From the EWP: "We need to put internationally recognized human rights at the core of the web platform [UDHR]" (with a link to https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/) 14:46:29 +1, even 14:46:37 DKA: Just want to point out in EWP, we have a sentence [quote] 14:46:42 ... links to UN declaration of human rights 14:46:43 q+ to suggest original wording and filing issue 14:47:08 ... that was intentional, based on feedback that technologists need to put human rights at the core of what you're building 14:47:21 ... if you want one kind of definition, that, at least on paper, has a lot of consensus among nations, that's the place to go 14:47:30 ... If you're going to talk about rights, then you need to qualify that 14:47:37 ... and I would urge qualifying by referencing UNDHR 14:47:49 ... if not, then I support removing the word rights and going back to being "respectful" 14:47:57 +1 to including Human Rights 14:47:58 human rights++ 14:48:02 ... But I do encourage having a reference to human rights in this document 14:48:04 ack jrosewell 14:48:08 +1 to point to human rights 14:48:14 jrosewell: the need to define rights is important, and offers a good solution that 14:48:29 ... stepping up a level, if the Web isn't something that people want to use because respect or any other reason, that's a problem 14:48:39 ... so in this sentence, trying to define usable, compelling, people want to use it 14:48:45 ... would reword entirely 14:49:04 ... so I support either defining what we mean by rights or if not going to do that, then respectful is a good word 14:49:12 ack florian 14:49:13 ... but perhaps we should say something positive about the experience, persuade ppl to use the Web 14:49:32 florian: I think having a reference somewhere to human right somewhere would be good thing, but in this particular sentence I support rolling back to not mentioning rgiths 14:49:39 ... we want to respect rights, but also many other things 14:49:52 ... nonetheless, appeal to UNCHR sounds fine, but not in this sentence 14:49:56 ack cwilso 14:49:56 cwilso, you wanted to suggest original wording and filing issue 14:50:09 cwilso: I suggest to deal with this is for me to change this back to "respectful" text and file an issue based on Dom's comment 14:50:11 +1 14:50:13 +1 Chris 14:50:20 ... and discuss whether to point to UNDHR 14:50:31 +1 14:50:32 ... I agree it's slightly awkard, but maybe spend a bit more thought on it 14:51:05 cwilso: [explains history of the change] 14:51:30 I think that we are trying to thread the point of "puts users first" and rights and respect. and that this can be addressed in the issue 14:51:32 tzviya: ok, go back to "respectful of its users" text and then open a separate issue about UNDHR 14:51:48 tzviya: any other points to raise in this call? 14:52:01 cwilso: I don't think any other large issues 14:52:10 ... need to review fantasai's comments, and we'll work out issues for those 14:52:14 ... I won't claim that I've absorbed all of them 14:52:17 ack Ralph 14:52:19 ... but I think that's it 14:52:38 Ralph: Just to make sure I understand proposal, is that you'll work with fantasai to open additional issues based on having merged this PR as we've now discussed 14:52:44 ... so whether merge first or issues later? 14:52:45 Raised issue https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/115 14:52:49 ... detail that editor will work out 14:52:55 ... but don't expect further changes? 14:53:02 cwilso: I believe that to be true? 14:53:09 ... I'm not going to hit merge right now 14:53:25