Vision TF meeting

<cwilso> https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/VisionTF/2023-09-12

Tzviya: I saw a pull request or two last night
… but what I'd really like to get to is goals with publishing and put together a timeline.

Truth over Falsehood

<tzviya> w3c/AB-public#113

<fantasai> github: w3c/AB-public#113

Tzviya: Dom was concerned this sounds a little bit like censorship.
… It is connected to an issue already closed in GH. Chris is this resolved?

cwilso:  No.
… Dom mentioned it in a proposal for rewrite.

Tzviya: So maybe say something like "mechanisms to introduce truth over falsehood" would be less direct.
… I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

<tantek> https://w3c.github.io/AB-public/Vision#intro

Tantek:  There are strong statements in the Vision
… about parallel harms the Web has amplified.
… We could do better here.
… But if you read the sentence, "mechanism" etc it doesn't work.
… So we need some other way of saying, distinguishing, misinformation.
… Something short could work there, but not something lengthy,
… from a copy writing perspective.

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to "web that prevents falsehood"

Tzviya: What if we say "Web that prevents falsehood" or "prevents falsehood" or something like that?

Florian: I agree with the sentiment, but am concerned because we don't at all know how to do this.
… That's not necessarily a blocking problem
… but there are problematic interpretations.
… If we had something specific to tie it to, that would be ok
… but since we don't, it's problematic.
… E.g. we don't want to say "truth over falsehood, such as "can't be anonymous."
... We don't want the Vision to be the basis for such things.

<Ralph> "that allows truth to travel as fast, or faster than, falsehood'

<tantek> +1 tzviya this is my point, this is in context of the *Introduction*

<cwilso> We believe the World Wide Web should be inclusive and respectful of its users: a Web that supports truth over falsehood, people over profits, humanity over hate.

cwilso: I want to underscore something Tantek said
... and say the context of this sentence is important.
… This is clearly an aspirational goal.
… We can absolutely destroy each of these clauses if questioning how to do it.
… I prefer to leave this as-is.
… It doesn't say censorship to me.
... I think it actually is a ringing statement. Yes it's aspirational, no it's not prescriptive.
… It's placed appropriately.
... Operational principles which are prescriptive follow.

<dsinger> +1

<tantek> +1 I would be ok as-is

<koalie> +1

<gendler> +1 aspirations matter

<fantasai> +1 wfm

wendyreid: I agree it's aspirational.
… Also I argue we are doing work in this area:
… content provenance, verification.
… When reading an article from the NYT, I want to make sure it is actually from NYT.
… It is in the intro, it is aspirational, it gets people into the mindset of what do people in this organization want to do.
... It's an opportunity to clarify, as in any mission statement,
… "show me the receipts."
… I think in context this works beautifully.

<tink> +1 to @Cwilso

<cwilso> credit to dsinger, btw, because I believe this line was largely authored by him.

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note the Vision is not limited to things we have figured out how to do, rather it is aspirational and forward looking

Tantek: Responding to Florian's point about things we've figured out that we know how to do.
... The Vision is aspirational and forward-looking, and must be, because everything else flows from there
… not the other way around.
… Don't put the cart before the horse.

Ralph: It's absolutely essential for us to have aspirational goals
… but we should be careful not to imply that our Web blocks false statements.
… It's a tricky statement to make.
… My on-the-fly suggestion was "a Web that allows truth to travel as fast or faster than falsehood."

<igarashi> +1 to the aspiration goals.

AvneeshSingh:  There seems to be confusion over operational and aspirational.
… The introduction is for providing background.
… Actual operating principles are below.
... Maybe it's giving the perception that it's a goal.

<tantek> +1 AvneeshSingh

Tzviya: What if we say "values" instead of "supports"?
… That doesn't imply anything about what's allowed vs not allowed.

<cwilso> +1 would agree with values rather than supports

<tantek> +1

<florian> [tantek, I think you slightly misunderstood what I was trying to say, as I wasn't criticizing aspirational statements as such, but I am being convinced by the rest of the discussion, so besides this comment, I don't feel the need to respond]

<fantasai> Prefer dsinger's suggestion of "promotes" rather than "values". I think "values" is too passive.

<tzviya> proposal: a Web that values truth over falsehood, people over profits, humanity over hate.

<elenalape> Support is a stronger word IMO, it shows actual commitment rather than a "we care"

<tzviya> +1

<fantasai> -1

<koalie> +1

<cwilso> 0

<bkardell_> 0

<tantek> +1

<dsinger> 0

<florian> 0 (needs to hear the reason for the -1)

<igarashi> 0 I prefer promote to value

Tzviya:  The concern is about "support" potentially interpreted as not allowing falsehood.

fantasai: "Value" is a weak statement.
... That technology "values" something is weird
… David Singer suggested promote, which works better.

<elenalape> To clarify, I'm in support of the word support

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note if we're looking to keep the rhythm/punchiness, let's keep "supports" and change it to "facts over falsehoods"

Tantek: I could be swayed to support "supports."
... But one suggestion to keep it pithy; 
… it's a small change to support "facts" vs "truth."
... It's a nice alliteration, and maybe avoids the judgment connotations.
... So my suggestion is keep "supports", change "truth" to "facts" and "falsehood" to "falsehoods".

<dsinger> +1 to tantek

<cwilso> +1 to tantek's suggestion

<wendyreid> +1

<koalie> +1

<fantasai> I'm also OK with "supports". Just don't like "values"

<tzviya> w3c/AB-public#96

ACTION: cwilso make a PR based on the discussion

DRM/Copyright

github: w3c/AB-public#96

wendyreid: Wrt principled stances in the past informing principled stances in the future, 
… we had taken a hard stance on copyright/DRM.
… It's odd to not see it mentioned in the Vision.
… If someone asks, "do you practice what you preach?" we can point to this.
… I don't know what this principle might sound like
… but I think we're on the side of protecting the moral right of authors.
… But not at the expense of usability and privacy and accessibility.

Tzviya:  So we need some wording around moral rights of the author?
… Maybe koalie can help, since she wrote the blog post on EME.
… It could be 1 sentence in operational principles.

<Zakim> koalie, you wanted to react to wendyreid

koalie: I blocked that from my memory, so I will have to go back and look
… but I'm happy to take an action item.

Florian: When we have topics where they're values deeply rooted in the community,
… and need to be clearer, fine.
... But this topic nearly split the community in half last time.

<elenalape> +1

<tantek> +1 florian this is not a topic that has deep consensus in the community

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note this is a very country-specific area and starts to go into specific legal (copyright) territory so I'd avoid it

Tantek:  Strong +1 to what Florian said.
… We're trying to capture the values that TimBL has been expressing in his decisions.
… This is an area where he had to balance so many concerns.
...  And the same with implementers.
… This doesn't [missed] and doesn't reflect consensus of the community.

<cwilso> +1 to Florian

<igarashi> +1 to florian and tantek

cwilso: I think not to implement in Vision, it seems more ethical than operational.
… User-focused issues like DRM, we can argue both sides of it.
… I would prefer not to address this.
… It's a good discussion, I'm just not sure it belongs here.

wendyreid:  I don't want to mention DRM by name.
… But the breakdown that Robin provided in his exercise
… gets at useful values.
… It gives us a good example of taking a step back from DRM.
… What does our stance wrt DRM tell us about ourselves?
… We took a particular stance for particular reasons.
... If we can, in the Vision, clearly articulate those values and principles that led us to make decisions in the past,
... into the future, that's helpful.

<cwilso> +1 to Wendy's mention of Robin's breakdown - that's what leads me to believe this is more of an ethical issue to address

<tantek> +1 to cwilso's summary

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask if there is rough consensus

Tzviya:  I like Robin's breakdown, but agree with cwilso that it doesn't belong in the Vision; maybe another document.
… I suggest that for this iteration, we defer.

<tantek> +1 to defer

cwilso: Go ahead and write that up.
… However, I want to make sure that we don't lose that conversation.
... So transfer the issue e.g. to EWP, but not close it and lose it and not look back.

<tantek> +1 to defer with keeping conversation going

<florian> +1 to defer

<AvneeshSingh> +1 to forward to ethical web principles

<wendyreid> +1 to forward to EWP

koalie: I think I might leave the words not including it and including it.
... I don't think we need it in the statement.
… Whether we have stance on copyright or DRM is orthogonal.
… We're doing our job, having a position on it and taking a position.
… My preference is not to include it, because then will include more and more detailed things.
... Maybe in another version can add it.

<wendyreid> +1 to koalie

<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to agree, I think that there is something in here

<tantek> +1 to koalie

<igarashi> +1

<tzviya> Proposal: defer w3c/AB-public#96

dsinger: I think we do have a principle here, but I can't figure out what it is.
… Something about crediting creators, truth over falsehood, etc.
… But we can defer, and address in future versions.

<tzviya> +1

<cwilso> +1

<tantek> +1

<florian> +1

tzviya: Proposal is to defer the issue (not close it)

<wendyreid> +1

<elenalape> +1

<igarashi> +1

<gendler> +1

<dsinger> +1

<jrosewell> 0

<koalie> 0

<tink> +1

<Ralph> 0

RESOLUTION: defer w3c/AB-public#96

RESOLUTION: Defer #96

Interop

<tzviya> w3c/AB-public#112

github: w3c/AB-public#112

Tzviya:  For Issue, #112: "The point of standards is to create and ensure interoperability."

cwilso:  On this particular issue, I'm going to take the unusual tactic of disagreeing with myself.
… I still feel this is super important.
… I believe that statement needs to be made.
… I looked earlier today to see where it would fit.
… We do already have a point about interop.
... But I couldn't figure out how it fits into the document.
… If someone else feels strongly this should be higher, ok but otherwise, I suggest to close.
… But I have found myself saying this multiple times this week at TPAC
… so maybe it needs to go somewhere.

<koalie> [Amy van der Hiel arrives]

Tantek:  I strongly agree with something of this form.
… Even this phrasing works for me.
… To me it suggests something that would be appropriate for the Vision, it's a core principle for the work we're doing.
… I also volunteer for help with phrasing.

Florian:  I am also supportive to say something of this nature.
… I am unsure about "ensure."
… We don't ensure, as voluntary standards, we merely facilitate.
… We don't have enforcement power.
... But with some more work on wording, I would support this.

<tantek> +1 to florian's nuances

<Ralph> ?What is missing from bullet 4 of https://w3c.github.io/AB-public/Vision#vision-web

Tzviya: We have an existing bullet on interop; maybe work it into that?

<Ralph> "There is one Interoperable world-wide Web."

"

We believe proven Interoperable implementation is a requirement for broad adoption of standards. To ensure reliable interoperability, we require multiple implementations and open test suites for our standards.

"

(existing bullet)

<tzviya> "We believe proven Interoperable implementation is a requirement for broad adoption of standards. To ensure reliable interoperability, we require multiple implementations and open test suites for our standards. The goal of standards is interoperability"

jrosewell: Interop is a key part of the the Digital Markets Act.

Tzviya:  That's not relevant here.

dsinger: Interop is a consequence. The actual purpose is for standards to create an open, level playing field.
… I'm not sure the goal is interop per se, the goal is to have that level playing field.
… Interop is part of enabling that.
… So maybe [suggested wording].

<fantasai> +1 dsinger

elenalape: Wrt Florian, I think ensure is correct. It's aspirational Vision.

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to propose language

<tantek> should we borrow from prior statement and use "lead" instead of "ensure"?

<elenalape> +1 tantek, lead is good

<bkardell_> the group disagrees with Chris's disagreement with himself

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to say it sounds like I should not have disagreed with myself.

cwilso: I'm hearing a fair amount of agreement that I should not have disagreed with myself. :)
... So maybe we need to make this a bit stronger.

ACTION: cwilso to work on wording for this, based on this discussion

<Zakim> koalie, you wanted to propose language

koalie:  I wanted to propose "foster."

<amy> +1 to mention "standards" vs. "our standards" or "w3c standards"

<amy> +1 to foster

(several): I like that.

cwilso: I wonder how that rings to non-native English speakers?

koalie: Like me? :)

<tantek> -1 to foster

Florian: This is not a cognate in French, and I like it too.

<igarashi> +1 to foster

<wendyreid> +1 to foster

<amy> I note the definition of foster is " encourage or promote the development of (something, typically something regarded as good)" vs. ensure which is "make certain that (something) shall occur or be the case"

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to speak to strength/importance of the statement

Tantek: I think something that Chris said is getting lost.
… This might be one of the #1 reasons we're here
.... and pretty strong language about it, "ensure", may be beyond our capabilities.
… But we need something strong
… to direct WGs that want to get away with less.
… We've seen at W3C a spectrum of varying degrees of actual interop from user's perspective.
… It's a problem we need to solve.
… We're working on it
… but as far as the Vision is concerned, I do think we need to state this strongly.
… Standards with bad interop hurt users.
… This is probably one of the most commonly-cited things we say in WG discussions, so it should be suitably strong.

<florian> +1

<tantek> +1 to let cwilso work this out

Tzviya: OK, we'll let cwilso work on this.
…  It means we won't publish today, but hopefully next time we'll have some PRs to move forward.

<amy> +1 to let Chris work it out

<koalie> [Chris Needham arrives]

<jrosewell> -1 "interoperability" needs to be defined - I prefer the DMA Article 2 definition - "the ability to exchange information and mutually use the information which has been exchanged through interfaces or other solutions, so that all elements of hardware or software work with other hardware and software and with users in all the ways in which they are intended to function."

<cwilso> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pulls

Pull Requests

https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pulls

<tzviya> w3c/AB-public#122

Horizontal Review

github: https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/122/files

cwilso:  There was a statement that this was an awkward sentence.
… I also heard that "horizontal review" is not generally understandable.
… This point has also been very misunderstood
… so I changed this as provided.

<wendyreid> +1 to merge

<AvneeshSingh> give some more time to go through this improved sentence. We are not publishing today anyways

fantasai: "Improve equity in ... security" seems weird. I think we just want to improve security?

<florian> +1 to fantasai

cwilso: Fair. Equity mostly applies only to a11y and i18n.  We could drop "equity in."

<Zakim> amy, you wanted to note "the technical standards"

Amy:  Re:  "the technical standards of the Web."
… We understand we mean our standards but there are other standards.
… Is this a little bit broad?

Publishing and Timeline

Tzviya: Earlier the AB resolved to run the TF through TPAC
… and probably won't object to continuing
… but it can't continue indefinitely.
… Some issues, including these, should be addressed before republishing.
... We can pass onto the AB for review.
… There's a lot of word-smithing.
… We have to remember this isn't a normative document.
… We want to make sure it is understood in an appropriate way, but there are no MUST statements here.
… We're not writing tests.
… I need to go through the issues repo and close those already resolved.
… Probably ~10 issues still need to be looked at.
… I would like to hear input on what next steps are.

<amy> +1 to few open issues before publishing to resolve and publishing in the next few weeks

Florian: I support publishing soon, with a caveat.
… We recently landed a large rewrite, for which fantasai had follow-up issues.
… I would like sufficient follow-up on those as needed
… but otherwise republishing soon is good.
… But that's not really the end of the road.
… To make it a W3C Statement, we need wide review
… and we may be at a good point to start soliciting it.
… That said, if we ask for broader feedback, we'll likely get some and have more issues to address.
... If your chairing availability is going to be limited, we might need to either find more time for you or find someone to take over.
… I don't think we'll be done quite so soon.

<koalie> +1 (perfect is the enemy of good)

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask if the feedback is in this group or in ab

Tzviya: I think discussion here and in the AB is whether things like feedback gets discussed in TF or gets managed with AB. We didn't come up with a long-term plan.
… If this TF is intended to last for a long time, we need to make it more formal.
… I'm emailing 4 different email lists, and it's awkward.

cwilso: Wrt fantasai's feedback, it's all filed as issues.
… We do need to go through and decide if they are blocking publication or not.

fantasai: I'd like to suggest Chris and those interested triage the issues
… and mark addressed / blocking (next publication wise).
… The only this that we should consider blocking are regressions from previous publications.

Tzviya: We're looking to not just to publish the next release, but also do our best to close this project.
… We need to get to a point where we can share this with broader world,
… Board, donors, etc.
... It will never be final, but we may step away for a bit.

<amy> +1 to identifying what needs to be addressed that is not a regression from the last version and moving forward

fantasai: @@ we should get to a point where we can publish a Note and at that point we can say there is not further intended changes.
… Then we can solicit the broader community's input.
… When we see no further issue, we can publish as a Note
… and when the rest of the community agrees, we make it a Statement.
... In terms of timeline
… probably the end of the year is reasonable.
… Then it may take a couple months to get community consensus.
… After AB consensus, we should ask for a couple months community review.
... Before we go for AC review.

<florian> +1

cwilso: I'm happy to go triage the issues as to what I think needs to be in next publication
… and what should get explicitly deferred, only one thing in that category now.
… There are also several issues as Proposed to Close.

fantasai:  I suggest the next agenda to be "here's a list of Propose to Close, we are going to close these on the call unless there's a comment not to."
… And also "here's issues we want to address before next publication", and after resolved, publish.
… And optionally other things to address which are not blocking publication.

[some more comments on timing]

Tzviya:  Is that timing ok for the Board?

dsinger:  Yes, don't have a specific timeline, we just want it to be progressing to resolution.

Tzviya:  There's  lots of process and polishing.

dsinger: We should enable good copy editing, maybe with koalie's help.
… The document needs a crisp feel and consistent voice.

tzviya asks for amy and koalie to guide

Pull requests

<cwilso> w3c/AB-public#124

https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/124/files

cwilso: This pull request was an attempt to address an issue raised by Wendy
… to improve readability of the operational principles section
… by adding a brief caption to each principle.
… I though thought it was a great idea.
... The difference here is really just item has a title
… if you look at a diff, just adding this caption

<fantasai:> diff

cwilso: [reads]
... It allows for better skimming.

<amy> I think the addition of the clarifications is really helpful and good

<amy> +1 to including them

<amy> (with the note that there will be editing/smoothing text)

<gendler> +1 to inclusion

fantasai:  Strong +1 from me.
... This is a great improvement.
… "Principled review" or "ethics review" might be better though.
… Also, "decentralization" may mean different things, we wanted to avoid using it specifically.
... So I recommend replacing with "Avoid Centralization"

<amy> +1 to this is a great improvement

<amy> +1 to "avoid centralization"

<gendler> I would suggest 'cross review' as that's a pretty broadly adopted word in the commercial space.

wendyreid:  I suggest "Diversity" to "Diverse" and "Consensus" to "Consensus-driven."
... +1 to avoiding "decentralization."

<tantek> +1

<Ralph> "equitable access" may be less jargony than "horizontal review"

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to comment on horizontal review

Tzviya:  I agree, "Avoid Centralization" makes sense.
… I'm on the fence about "horizontal review," it means a lot within W3C
… but I can see the point.

Florian:  This is a great step in a great direction, I agree with fantasai's comments.
… I think it would be helpful to have anchors on each point.
… These are things that are useful to link to
… so maybe add an anchor.

dsinger: +1 to removing "horizontal" out.
… It's actually talking about equity of access.
… We achieve that by making sure that we review for it.
... But the review isn't the goal, it's a means to achieve an end result.
  ... So I would prefer "access equity."

<tantek> +1 equity of access

<tink> +1 to removing "horizontal", agree it's internal terminology.

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to dsinger

cwilso: I want to go back to one of the other PRs
... which is about refactoring that bullet.
… And there was a point made by someone that "equity of access" only applies to a11y and i18n
… so I removed that term.
... I tried "consistent review."
… I think "horizontal review" is more acceptable term, since it is used on teams I've worked on before.
… I'm fine to not use as well.
… I would suggest follow consistent review, dovetail with other change.

<dsinger> +1 the bullet is a bit mixed and could be split

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note LGTM and yet labels start to make this look like a list, with implied ordering/priority and thus worth further consideration (I agree with Users-first being first)

Tantek: I'm ok with both of those. I'm ok to leave this to the editor.
… I like these labels in general.
… Having it labeled makes it more looking like a list
… which has an implication on, does this have a meaningful order?
… Maybe we want to take that into consideration.

<tantek> I do like that Users First is first

<amy> +1 to users first as listed first (that would be the one element that would matter to me in how things are listed)

<koalie> [I note that the W3C Process refers to "Horizontal Review". I prefer we use existing verbiage for the sake of not creating confusion]

<tantek> koalie: [I'd say that the W3C Process is *very* confusing and our goal here is reach a much broader audience and certainly be less confusing than the Process]

<fantasai> +1 tantek

cwilso: I'm concerned about changing to active, we're talking about principles which is a noun.
… For adjectives, it's unclear what's decentralized.

wendyreid: "We'll follow these operational principles."
… "diversity ducked out as like, huh?

Florian:  It's not something you follow?

wendyreid:  It's not a make or break thing for me, if more people like as-is it's fine.

koalie: I wanted to respond to dsinger but lost track, wrt replacing horizontal review.
… I'm an advocate for using terms consistently, and Process refers to "horizontal review" and explains it.
… But I'm not blocking.
… Let's publish as long as non-blocking, we can fix it later if it's an issue.

<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to respond

fantasai:  The bullet is not about horizontal specifically, but a value that we're enacting through horizontal review.
... I think we need to bike-shed it further as we explain this bullet point better.
… But as for using the term "horizontal review," I think we need to make sure our document is understandable to outsiders.

<dsinger> +1 to Fantasai

<tantek> +1 fantasai

<tzviya> +1 to not clicking through to the Process

Tantek:  The Process shouldn't be driving our terminology here, but rather vice versa.
… Second, I think the Process through heavy use of jargon is unfriendly to a broad audience.
… It is anti-inclusive and anti-accessible.
… I don't want to propagate those errors into the Vision.
.... The Vision reaches a much broader audience, we should keep it as free of W3C jargon as possible.

<wendyreid> +1

<fantasai> +1

cwilso: Let's push off that decision by saying "consistent review" now and working on it in another PR.
... Let's come up with a non-jargony way to explain what we mean.

<amy> +1 to changing to "consistent review" now and moving forward

<florian> +1

<tantek> +1 to "consistent review"

<Zakim> koalie, you wanted to react to tantek

<fantasai> -1 to consistent review, but it's a placeholder so anything is fine :)

koalie:  I feel strongly about it because we need to be able to refer people to the correct document.
… This will be confusing.
… I'm surprised to hear the Process is jargony.
… If I can find agreement in the Vision document, then I will feel strongly about making sure Process uses the same verbiage.

Tzviya:  I am trying to drive home that unlike most W3C documents, this is trying to be more outward-facing.
… There will be some things that are not consistent.
… And maybe in the future we update the Process.

Florian: My preference here is to merge the PR and keep bike-shedding.
… Eventually we may have "horizontal review" in the bullet, but not as it title.
… We will probably land on something like this, but eventually will get there.
... I'm not in love with "consistent" but since we're going to bike-shed it's OK.

<fantasai> +1

<Zakim> amy, you wanted to ask a probably silly question

<amy> https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#dfn-wide-review

Amy: [context] When I look at document, I see the term "wide review."
… I guess just to be a little embarrassed, but does wide review contain horizontal review?

Florian:  Yes
... Wide contains horizontal.

<Ralph> "wide review" is wider than horizontal review

tzviya:  It highlights that the Process has lots of jargon.

<tzviya> Proposal: merge #124

<fantasai>+1

<tantek> +1 merge

<cwilso> +1000

<amy> +1 to pull requests

<wendyreid> +1

<florian> +1

<tzviya> +1

<dsinger> +1

<gendler> +1

<Ralph> +1

<igarashi> +1

<koalie> +1

<tink> +1

dsinger:  We need to work on this. We passionately believe in equity, for example, and therefore work on a11y and i18n.
… The tool we use to achieve that is less important than the fact that we want to do it.
… So I support cwilso's proposal to merge something now and deal with the bullet later.
… I'm confident we'll come up with better labels as we work on it.

<amy> agree re: merge now and deal w/ bullet later

RESOLUTION: merge PR 124

fantasai: Horizontal review is specifically about getting review from the horizontal review groups - a11y, i18n, etc.
… This is *part of* wide review
… which is about getting review more broadly, from people outside the group that developed the specification.
… Not just the HRGs (which are internal) but the broader public, users, developers, implementers not present or participating, etc.