13:59:34 RRSAgent has joined #vision 13:59:38 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-vision-irc 13:59:39 gendler has joined #vision 13:59:40 Zakim has joined #vision 13:59:46 Meeting: Vision TF 13:59:53 Date: 2023-10-26 14:00:00 Chair: Tzviya 14:00:09 zakim, start the meeting 14:00:09 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:00:11 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), tzviya 14:00:20 regrets+ Chris 14:00:25 present+ Tzviya 14:00:32 present+ Avneesh 14:00:41 present+ 14:01:07 igarashi has joined #vision 14:02:08 scribe+ 14:02:08 wendyreid has joined #vision 14:02:08 present+ 14:02:49 present+ 14:02:49 agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/VisionTF/2023-10-26 14:02:49 agenda+ Issues with propose closing tag - lightning round 14:02:49 agenda+ Next steps on publishing 14:02:52 zakim, agenda? 14:02:52 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda: 14:02:54 1. Issues with propose closing tag - lightning round [from amy] 14:02:54 2. Next steps on publishing [from amy] 14:03:01 present+ 14:03:01 zakim, take up agenda 1 14:03:01 agendum 1 -- Issues with propose closing tag - lightning round -- taken up [from amy] 14:03:43 mallory has joined #vision 14:03:43 Tzviya: It's been a while since I've been here. I put in a bunch of issues, and I put 20 mins for next steps 14:03:45 +1 to next steps first 14:04:22 ... I think we should talk about our goals before we address topics 14:04:22 zakim, take up agenda 2 14:04:22 agendum 2 -- Next steps on publishing -- taken up [from amy] 14:04:24 Tzviya: Many of us have been working on this since April, we worked on it and discussed at TPAC 14:04:51 ... we nitpick, we go back and forth on details. there's a lot of not fantastic behavior in the respository. we need to figure out the end game 14:05:12 ... The AB took this up before we had a Board to discuss what we would do as Director free 14:05:57 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/135 14:05:57 ... We now have a Board. I opened an issue on why we are doing this. If our goals have been met I think we should publish or stop working 14:05:57 ... I asked David of the Board and Coralie and Amy as Comm if they have what they need 14:06:15 ... The goal was to get consent on what we stand for. It seems we're spending so much time on bike shedding on freezes, on how to structure 14:06:37 q+ 14:06:42 ... maybe we should put a bullet list, of what the goals are, and the Comms Team can work on how it's presented. and the Board can have the document it needs for recruiting, fundraising etc 14:07:00 ... we'd talked about publishing this as a Statement. We're kind of deadlocked 14:07:16 q- later 14:07:17 ack florian 14:07:28 Florian: I'm happy to let Elika go first 14:07:31 q+ florian 14:07:58 fantasai: I think your'e doing a good job chairing. putting together a document like this or anyone where it's not obvious. it takes discussion and it's messy. 14:08:12 Dingwei has joined #vision 14:08:25 ... I see we've made a good deal of progress. editorial improvements. I think there's more to go. but I don't see this TF as being any less functional overall than a regular WG 14:08:30 present+ 14:08:42 Tzviya: 2 people have contacted me to say they won't participate anymore because of how it goes here 14:08:56 fantasai: I think we can make progress regardless 14:08:56 ack florian 14:09:01 ack fantasai 14:09:04 q+ 14:09:15 Florian: I never expected this to be quick. I think theirs is value in this. we need horiztional review 14:09:41 ... fairly recently we did a major restructuring. it's unsurprising that after a restructure it takes a while to review. we like the new structure but it's taking a while 14:10:04 q+ 14:10:11 q+ 14:10:14 ... in addition to steady but slow. it's inevitable that there would be some detractors but if we're making progress but only a few object it's normal 14:10:17 [ -> https://w3c.github.io/AB-public/Vision "Vision for W3C", editor's draft] 14:10:37 ... I don't think we're off track. we should continue. David mentioned the Board wants to use this for fundraising. 14:11:03 ... WE may get into councils. it will help to ground us not just on what's happened before but principles 14:11:14 ...we wont' be done in a week or month but I didn't think we should be 14:11:21 q+ to comment 14:11:26 ack AvneeshSingh 14:11:28 scribe+ 14:11:46 Avneesh: a lot of things we're going to accelerate, decelerate according to CEO. 14:11:54 ... i see this as evergreen. it will keep evolving. 14:12:24 ... Other bodies can contribute and improve. it's not MS, Apple or Google. it won't be fixed on and done. as a community it will keep evolving 14:12:54 ...we have to carve out way of using. if we have consensus. we can put-on the main site to say we agree on this. the CEO will get a lot of direction from this and we can expect we'll get input from him 14:13:10 q+ to ask what the goals of an evergreen doc are 14:13:18 ... mission and vision can not be used for funding. you have to adapt to each. it will from basis. Board can do w/ this 14:13:19 ack gendler 14:13:40 Max: i'd like to split my statement into two. one is broadly agreeing w/ Elika, Florian and Avneesh. I do see progress 14:13:56 ... esp w/ the rework that Florian mentioned. we have been moving steadily forward to something usable. 14:14:10 +1 to an off ramp 14:14:20 ... second is the need for an off ramp, that the rest of us except Florian didn't expect it done. many of us have been seeking it. 14:14:42 ... When we look at that publishing as a Note and saying it's a work in progress to say not enough consensus. 14:14:42 q+ to comment of evergreen and off ramp 14:14:58 ... also to tag Board and Comm, this is something to use for fundraising. 14:15:11 ... if something they want to use, great. make your version based on it. use what works. 14:15:27 ... if the Membership says they don't like what the Board has done, we vote on the Board 14:16:04 ack wendyreid 14:16:04 ... we can get some other members if we think they'll do a better job. that's my pitch for an off ramp. i'm sure there are structural issues someone could let me know 14:16:36 Wendy: I agree w/ much of what's been said. sometimes you need a step back. in the last year we've made massive progress. it's a good looking document. 14:16:36 ... it has points of contention but it has value. i agree w/ what Max says re: off ramp and a path forward. 14:16:54 ... what we're suggesting re: handing off is to take a breather. one thing which might need to be made clear is there's a huge amount of emotional labor 14:17:19 .. it's not just being objective. we're operating at a bit of a low trust environment. we are seeing criticism. 14:17:44 ... i make a joke that maybe I shouldn't have. Chairing has become quite fraught. participating has become fraught. i think we need to publish as draft note. 14:18:04 ... test it. use it to make decisions. leave it for a few months. then let it settle. it's tense and it's not making it better 14:18:11 ack amy 14:18:11 amy, you wanted to comment 14:18:15 ... sometimes pressure creates a diamond and other times explosions 14:18:29 amy: Everyone has made good points 14:18:45 ... if I were to summarize, people on this call largely feel it's going in a good direction, that it's work worth doing 14:19:09 ... and hopefully want to get to a point for pausing, to hand off to Board and Comm Team for use 14:19:27 ... Editing on this has been wonderful, I don't think better than Comm Team, but maybe Comm Team can take some pressure off 14:19:44 ... If there's concerns about behavior, Idk if people want to have a 1:1 call to address 14:19:46 q+ 14:19:58 ... But from historical perspective, I believe this document is important to Consortium in same way as Patent Policy 14:20:15 ... This is setting tone for W3C, and whether ppl want to come here. 14:20:24 ... Like Patent Policy 14:20:31 ... which was also difficult conversation 14:20:43 ... Community brought it to exist, in terms that didn't exist before 14:20:49 ... I believe this work has been really solid 14:20:58 ... It's inevitable that there will be pushback, but the work is very important 14:21:07 ... and I think it's beatifully well-written 14:21:17 ... want to put it out 14:21:21 ... describing an off-ramp might be good 14:21:43 ack me 14:21:43 tzviya, you wanted to ask what the goals of an evergreen doc are 14:21:51 ack florian 14:21:51 florian, you wanted to comment of evergreen and off ramp 14:22:22 Florian: a couple of related comments. Avneesh mentioned evergreen. i think this won't be changing often. it won't be frozen and never touched. it will evolve but slowly 14:22:46 ... for off ramp, i think we're getting there. I mentioned a year. I think that's statement level. I think we're close. 14:23:11 ... we won't say to the Board "we're done" but say "we're roughly where we need to be" 14:23:31 ... we leave a few months. for the rest of the community to absorb. we don't need to tell the Comm team before publishing 14:23:51 ... if people find useful bits, they can. we're not ready to say this is collective. the temporary off ramp is maybe a few rounds 14:24:10 ... from the recent reshuffling. do proactive wide review. let things trickle back down. hopefully not many rounds after that 14:24:32 ... if we tried after wide review, that would not work w/ Statement which does require wide review. we need to circulate earlier. 14:24:47 ... I think 2-3 meetings from this one. we can close pull requests. etc. that sounds plausible 14:24:53 q+ to talk about agreed upon editorial process 14:24:56 ack av 14:25:14 Avneesh: Florian provided a good clarification. we expect major changes maybe in 2 years. it will be slow evolution 14:25:52 ... one reason we're seeing this is how we've communicated. we've said it is the vision, before CEO, etc. maybe people are in a panic of losing out. we can communicate it's ongoing. it may reduce the pressure. 14:26:18 ... ppl can contribute later. to reassure they will be heard. to address stress of chairing, eg: process CG 14:26:35 ... we can figure out turns. so the pressure is relieved. let's carry on. if we want a pause, that's fine. 14:26:47 ack fantasai 14:26:51 ...we can say to the AC, here's a pause, get feedback etc 14:27:11 fantasia: I'd like to say the same as Amy and Florian. what we're doing is valuable. I think we have more work before a pause 14:27:25 ... I think we're at 3-ish meetings, materials to take to AB. and ask for consensus there 14:27:45 ... and hopefully the answer is yes and we can publish a Note. and that would be a good time to take a 3 month or so pause 14:28:10 ... and let people see it. there are still some issues we should address. maybe close. I don't think we're far from a Note. to address internal issues 14:28:18 ack Ralph 14:28:18 ... there might be additional work but we have something pretty solid 14:28:43 Ralph: I think I'm hearing here that there's a lot of emotional capital in this work. I personally thank all of you who have made those contributions 14:29:05 .. its different than tech spec. it's hard to know how to test. I hope we won't decide to be done when we're too exhausted to do more 14:29:38 ... I'd encourage us to move quickly to where we are comfortable to declare for now we're doing 14:29:54 ... Max mentioned an off ramp. some of us won't leave it behind permanently. 14:30:13 .. it's appropriate to declare we've put enough effort is appropriate and necessary. 14:30:15 q+ 14:30:26 .. .I think it's very useful that can serve several needs and can be used in several ways. 14:30:39 ... and ppl will figure out how to use it. i'd remind us of words that have been written 14:30:57 .. .the document helps the world understand what the W3C is. we hav ea new w3c. we don't have th investor o the web to tell us. 14:31:12 ... it was very challenging and a useful exercise and why what we do matters 14:31:36 ... i'll repeat a frame: the status of all our documents assert what the authors believe to be it's state. the consensus , the group, whether they will produce another version 14:31:55 .. or let it sit and accumulate comments. I would plea that we declare done-ness 14:32:19 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/VisionTF AB/VisionTF goals 14:32:26 ... and not feel we're abandoning it. i don't think we'll want to abandon it. i think we can define it in ways that let's us know when we pick it up again 14:32:46 ... there's always someone to propose another fix. we might not fix in one or two meetings. we can live w/ the draft we have 14:33:08 Tzviya: you mad ea lot of important points. this is draft. calling it that is important. in addition to not burning out the chair 14:33:31 ... when the AB first brought this. we had a draft that we knew wasn't finall. we had a WD. at this point it's very different from that 14:33:57 ... there were several pull requests this week. we decided to work w/ issues not PR. we want to avoid getting to a point where it was written by committee 14:34:17 ... ppl have said it was edited by committee. not a clearly articulated. we want to get to a point. 14:34:26 /me q+ about the overall direction of the document 14:34:38 ... some say "it can't be aspirational because you have to back it up". i want to reel this back in to what th goals are 14:34:40 s/repeat a frame/repeat a refrain I frequently use/ 14:34:59 ... we want to articuatlae what w3c stands for, what the principles are and what we do to back that up 14:35:09 +1 tzviya 14:35:12 ... i will go to q but want to go back to agenda to close up issues which will close this up 14:35:26 ack me 14:35:26 tzviya, you wanted to talk about agreed upon editorial process 14:35:27 ... it does not have to be someone from AB. could be Max or Mallory. 14:35:28 ack fl 14:35:44 Florian: I get a sense that there's some measure of disappointment. that' its not too bad 14:36:01 .. .it can't be revolutionary. we already know what we are. we are being careful to not stray from path 14:36:18 s/we are/we are trying to strengthen who we are while 14:36:23 .. .this should be largely surprising. it has to be aspirational. if it feels mundane it's bc the mundane is good 14:36:35 .. .let's not be sad it doesn't make your heart burn every time. 14:36:41 ack fantasai 14:36:43 florian +1 14:37:06 fantasai: for questions of overall direction we can discuss. but we should clean up what we need and open issues. let's publish a note 14:37:08 s/ that' its not too bad/ that' its a little underwhelming/ 14:37:16 s/can discuss/can discuss in AB/ 14:37:17 Tzviya: I think we should try for November. which is soon 14:37:23 s/surprising/unsurprising 14:37:24 s/open issue/address open issues/ 14:37:39 [Katheleen Lappe joins] 14:37:47 s/bc the mundane is/bc our mundane has been fairly 14:37:52 Tzviya: welcome. we had a meta conversation and are now going to issues 14:37:57 zakim, take up agenda 1 14:37:57 agendum 1 -- Issues with propose closing tag - lightning round -- taken up [from amy] 14:38:07 [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/10 14:38:07 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/16 14:38:07 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/53 14:38:07 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/72 14:38:07 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/75 14:38:07 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/98 14:38:11 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/118]] 14:38:33 Tzviya: Chris and I discussed issues. i hope we can get through quickly. if i find we're getting stuck I think we can bring to asynch 14:38:54 ... first is defining the world "industry". this goes back so far, it's issue #10 14:38:58 +1 to closing 14:38:59 +1 to close issue 10 14:39:13 +1 14:39:14 fantasai: agree. and i think a lot of language has shifted 14:39:15 +1 to closing 14:39:18 +1 to close 14:39:56 +1 14:40:21 Tzviya: next issue is #16. this goes back. again this is pulled from early repository. "recognize value from a wide variety of publishers" I belive this was addressed 14:40:27 +1 14:40:29 +1 to close issue #16 14:40:49 +1 14:40:59 +1 to closing 14:41:04 +1 14:41:10 Ralph: this group did agree to close previously I believe 14:41:14 Tzviya: I will close 14:41:33 ... moving along. We're at Issue #53. 6 months or so. clarifying use of Vision doc 14:41:38 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/w3c-vision/#purpose 14:41:47 I think this is well-addressed in the document 14:42:01 .. there's more discussion here. I belive there have been pull requests. a lot of back and forth. i believe it's been clarified. if it hasn't w need a new issue as it goes on and on 14:42:18 .. there are a few pull requests and Chris points out it's a duplicate of issue #92 14:42:28 q? 14:42:29 .. .it's about refocusing the scope of vision 14:42:44 s/92/22/ 14:42:56 Florian: I think we can close. it doesn't destroy the discussion. ppl can open issue if things to address but that' not in actionable form 14:43:00 +1 to florian 14:43:04 +1 14:43:04 +1 to close issue # 53 14:43:08 also +1 to close 14:43:29 Tzviya: propose to close and if there are issues, we can open narrower issues 14:43:38 ... ok great. 14:44:17 ... next issue is #72. This is a comment from Nigel that we distinguish between vision of org and output. I believe this was addressed long ago 14:44:22 +1 to close 14:44:23 ... addressed w/ refocusing in July 14:44:30 +1 to close issue #72 14:44:33 +1 14:44:48 Tzviya: this was addressed w/ rewrite and Nigel hasn't commented since then 14:44:54 ... let me know if i'm going too fast 14:45:06 +1 to closing as addressed by rewrite 14:45:18 remaining issues: [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/75 14:45:18 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/98 14:45:18 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/118]] 14:46:00 [I don't see harm in closing issues such as these; if there's more to discuss and debate new and rephrased issues can be opened] 14:46:11 Florian: I think this was addressed. David was thinking of different things. I think most issues have been addressed 14:46:16 RESOLVED: Close issue 10, 16, 53, 72 14:46:39 Tzviya: Issue #75. Chris and I felt we could have closed on our own. but in the interest in the harmony of the group we thought ti would be good 14:46:49 s/most issues have/the core point of this issue has 14:46:50 ... #75 is on industry. can likely be closed w/ same comment 14:47:02 fantasai: there was a need for edits but those were made 14:47:11 Tzviya: noting edits were made. 14:47:19 +1 to close #75 14:47:21 RESOLVED: close 75 14:47:43 Tzviya: Issue #98. I thought we might get stuck on. it's on laws on consensus. 14:47:59 ... filed by JR. suggesting we take in competition legislation 14:48:14 q+ re: laws 14:48:58 Mallory: there's a whole layer cake re: laws. talking about norms and standards. might be compelling that it's worth acknowledging. but can't rely on trade law decisions. does not belong in this document 14:49:02 ack amy 14:49:02 amy, you wanted to discuss laws 14:49:02 +1 mallory unsurprisingly 14:49:46 amy: Another reason to close is that there's a false dichotomy, saying that things we have some legal requirement. But we make voluntary standards. 14:49:59 Amy: we are not a legal or governance body so that's another reason to not adopt 14:50:11 fantasai: how to state? 14:50:16 ... can you restate? 14:50:30 Mallory: want me to type something in the chat. 14:50:45 Ralph: and Tzviya can close w/ pointer to minutes vs. abstracting from them 14:50:56 Tzviya: I will do that 14:51:04 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-vision-minutes.html Ralph 14:51:20 Ralph: you can cite that ^^ 14:51:34 s/how to state?/Agree with everything Mallory said, and +1 to close/ 14:51:40 RESOLVED: Close 92 14:51:41 Tzviya: the last issue is #118. demonstrating core principles 14:51:59 Florian: 98 or 118? 14:51:59 s/92/98 14:52:03 Ralph: I think you skipped one? 14:52:21 Tzviya: this was raised by Elika in f2f, does the rephrasing capture this? 14:52:40 fantasai: it got addressed but sentences a bit redundant. I made a PR to address changes. 14:52:41 q+ 14:52:43 present+ MalloryKnodel, KathleenLappe, Amy 14:52:48 ack florian 14:52:49 ... good to address better but w don't have to do on the call 14:52:50 Laws, trade obligations, policies and other considerations can be used in the process of persuading the group as it moves towards consensus on any given topic, but none of these orthogonal (and contextually patchworked) agreements should close down conversation in standards making. In the converse, we are setting norms, not overriding legal obligations. If a standard contravenes an obligation, the implementing entity would hold that responsibility. 14:53:40 Florian: thi issue and #119 are related. to values. re: how we work and how they relate to what we produce 14:53:40 q+ 14:53:40 ... it's in a bit of an awkward place. I think what Elika wrote. I think if we take it, it will close this and 119 14:53:40 ack gendler 14:53:43 Tzviya: I've not yet had a chance to look at it. I'd rather not say today as Chris is on phone 14:53:59 Max: on process. as this is tied to other issues. it's come up in most recent, one Robin put in. 14:54:20 ... might have reference to it. is it worth saying that it's closable considering how many other issues address it or not how process works? 14:54:31 fantasai: they are different issues but solvable w/ same method 14:54:56 Florian: different between Robin and fantasais' is this addresses issue. Robin's came more out of the blue. 14:55:09 s/Florian: different between Robin and fantasais' is this addresses issue. Robin's came more out of the blue./ 14:55:10 s/different between Robin and fantasais' is this addresses issue. Robin's came more out of the blue.// 14:55:23 Ralph: other issues? 14:55:36 Tzviya: we have 5 mins. we could tackle that today. 14:55:41 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/58 14:56:31 Ralph: I didn't know if 58? 14:56:32 Tzviya: we could address 14:56:32 fantasai: it's a long issue 14:56:32 Tzviya: maybe address next time 14:56:32 fantasai: I took multiple issues@ 14:56:38 s/if 58?/if you intentionally left 58 off the agenda? It's labeled "propose closing" too 14:56:51 s/issues@/implementations issue and made a PR, just wanted to bring that up/ 14:56:55 Tzviya: maybe we could add a contributing file to describe this. we won't add anything w/out our editor. he's on a plane 14:56:59 q+ 14:57:00 https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/120 & https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/136 14:57:00 ... we can look next time 14:57:09 ack fl 14:57:36 Florian: quick editorial markup suggestion. section 6 has a long list. i think ppl will want to refer. maybe hyperlink to specific point on list ppl will appreciate. if that's helpful i can add ids 14:57:42 +1 to ids 14:57:52 fantasai: I think it's a good idea 14:58:15 Tzviya: please add an issue. i trust your skills. we're trying ot model the behavior for everyone 14:58:38 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-vision-minutes.html Ralph 14:58:44 ... thanks all. 14:59:31 Note that the document has been updated on https://www.w3.org/TR/w3c-vision/ since last time 14:59:44 so we have an up-to-date version on /TR at this point 14:59:48 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minut', fantasai. Try /msg RRSAgent help 14:59:51 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-vision-minutes.html fantasai 15:00:28 zakim, end meeting 15:00:29 As of this point the attendees have been Tzviya, Avneesh, gendler, igarashi, wendyreid, Ralph, Dingwei, MalloryKnodel, KathleenLappe, Amy 15:00:30 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 15:00:31 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/26-vision-minutes.html Zakim 15:00:37 I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 15:00:38 Zakim has left #vision