Meeting minutes
Next steps on publishing
Tzviya: It's been a while since I've been here. I put a bunch of issues on the agenda and I put 20 minutes for next steps.
... I think we should talk about our goals before we address topics.
<gendler> +1 to next steps first
<tzviya> w3c/
Tzviya: Many of us have been working on this since April, we worked on it and discussed it at TPAC.
… We nitpick, we go back and forth on details. There's a lot of not fantastic behavior in the repository. We need to figure out the end game.
… The AB took this up, before we had a Board, to discuss what we would do as Director-free.
... 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.
… I asked David of the Board and Coralie and Amy as Comm if they have what they need.
… 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.
… Maybe we should put out 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.
… We'd talked about publishing this as a Statement. We're kind of deadlocked.
fantasai: I think you're doing a good job chairing. Putting together a document like this or anything where it's not obvious; it takes discussion and it's messy.
… I see we've made a good deal of progress, there are 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.
Tzviya: Two people have contacted me to say they won't participate anymore because of how it goes here.
fantasai: I think we can make progress regardless.
Florian: I never expected this to be quick. I think there is value in this. We do need horizontal review.
… 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.
… 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.
... I don't think we're off track. We should continue. David mentioned the Board wants to use this for fundraising.
… We may get into councils. It will help to ground us not just on what's happened before but on our principles.
… We won't be done in a week or month but I didn't think we should be; maybe even a year.
<Ralph> [ Vision for W3C, editor's draft]
Avneesh: A lot of things are going to accelerate or decelerate according to the new CEO.
… I see this as evergreen. It will keep evolving.
… Other W3C bodies can contribute and improve. It's not MS, Apple or Google. It won't be fixed one and done. As a community, it will keep evolving.
… We have to carve out way of using it if we have consensus. We can put this 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.
… The Mission and Vision can not be used for funding as is. You have to adapt to each request. It will form a basis. The Board can do what they need with this.
Max: I'd like to split my statement into two. One is broadly agreeing with Elika, Florian and Avneesh. I do see progress.
… Especially with the rework that Florian mentioned. We have been moving steadily forward to something usable.
... Second is the need for an off ramp. That the rest of us, except Florian who didn't expect it done; many of us have been seeking an off ramp.
… When we look at that publishing this as a Note and saying it's a work in progress.
… Also to tag Board and Comm, this is something they can use for fundraising.
… If it is something they want to use, great. Make your version based on it; use what works.
… If the Membership says they don't like what the Board has done, we vote on the Board.
… We can get some other Members on 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.
<tzviya> +1 to an off ramp
Wendy: I agree with 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.
… It has points of contention but it has value. I agree with what Max says re: off ramp and a path forward.
… 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 in doing this.
… It's not just being objective. We're operating at a bit of a low trust environment. We are seeing criticism.
… I made a joke that maybe I shouldn't have. Chairing has become quite fraught. Participating has become fraught. I think we need to publish as a Draft Note.
… Let's test it; use it to make decisions. We can leave it for a few months. Then let it settle. It's been tense and this is not making it better.
... Sometimes pressure creates a diamond and other times explosions.
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to comment
Amy: Everyone has made good points.
… If I were to summarize, people on this call largely feel it's going in a good direction, that it's work worth doing.
… And hopefully if we want to get to a point for pausing we can hand off to Board and Comm Team for use.
… The editing on this has been wonderful. I don't think the Comm Team would do anything better but if the Comm Team can take some pressure off in some way we would be willing.
… If there's concerns about behavior, I don't know if people want to have a 1:1 calls to address.
… But from historical perspective, I believe this document is important to Consortium in same way as the Patent Policy.
… This is setting the tone for W3C and it will impact whether people want to come here and how they behave when they do and what work we do.
…The Patent Policy was also a difficult process.
… Community brought this to existence, in terms that didn't exist before.
… I believe this work has been really solid.
… It's inevitable that there will be push back, but the work is very important
… and I think it's beautifully well-written.
… I want to put it out.
… I agree describing an off-ramp might be good.
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask what the goals of an evergreen doc are
<Zakim> florian, you wanted to comment of evergreen and off ramp
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.
… For an off ramp, I think we're getting there. I mentioned a year. I think that's Statement level. I think we're close.
… We won't say to the Board "we're done" but say "we're roughly where we need to be."
… We can leave this a few months for the rest of the community to absorb. We don't need to tell the Comm Team before publishing.
… 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 off
… from the recent reshuffling. We should do proactive wide review; let things trickle back down. Hopefully there will be not many rounds after that.
… If we tried without wide review, that would not work with Statement which does require wide review. We need to circulate this earlier.
… I think 2-3 meetings from this one we can close pull requests. etc. That sounds plausible.
Avneesh: Florian provided a good clarification. We could expect major changes maybe in 2 years. It will be a slow evolution.
… One reason we're seeing this is how we've communicated. We've said it is the Vision, before the new CEO, etc. Maybe people are in a panic of losing out time to comment. We can communicate it's ongoing. It may reduce the pressure.
… People can contribute later, that might reassure that they will be heard. To address the stress of chairing, eg: process CG,
… we can figure out turns. So the pressure is relieved. Let's carry on. If we want a pause, that's fine.
… We can say to the AC, "here's a pause, we'd like to get feedback" etc.
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.
… I think we're at 3-ish meetings, then we will have materials to take to AB and ask for consensus there.
… 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,
… and let people see it. There are still some issues we should address. But maybe we are close. I don't think we're far from a Note. To address internal issues
… there might be additional work but we have something pretty solid.
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.
… Its different than a 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.
… I'd encourage us to move quickly to where we are comfortable to declare for now we're done.
… Max mentioned an off ramp. Some of us won't leave it behind permanently.
… It's appropriate to declare we've put enough effort, it is appropriate and necessary.
… I think it's very useful and that it can serve several needs and can be used in several ways.
… And people will figure out how to use it. I'd remind us of words that have been written:
… the document helps the world understand what the W3C is. We have a new W3C. We don't have the inventor of the web to tell us what to do.
… It was very challenging and a useful exercise and why what we do matters.
… I'll repeat a refrain I frequently use: 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
… or let it sit and accumulate comments. I would plea that we declare done-ness
... 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.
… There's always someone to propose another fix. We might not fix it in one or two meetings. We can live with the draft we have.
<Ralph> AB/VisionTF goals
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about agreed upon editorial process
Tzviya: You made a lot of important points. This is a Draft; calling it that is important. In addition to not burning out the chair.
… When the AB first brought this forward we had a draft that we knew wasn't final. We had a WD. At this point it's very different from that.
… There were several pull requests this week. We decided to work with issues not pull requests. We want to avoid getting to a point where it was written by committee.
… People have said it reads like it was edited by committee. It is not a clearly articulated. We want to get to a point.
... Some say "it can't be aspirational because you have to back it up". I want to reel this back in to what the goals are.
… We want to articulate what W3C stands for, what the principles are and what we do to back that up.
... I will go to the queue but want to go back to agenda to close up issues which will close this up.
... It does not have to be someone from the AB. It could be Max or Mallory.
<fantasai> +1 tzviya
Florian: I get a sense that there's some measure of disappointment in this; that its a little underwhelming.
… It can't be revolutionary. We already know what we are trying to strengthen, who we are, while we are being careful to not stray from path.
… This should be largely unsurprising. It has to be aspirational. If it feels mundane it's because our mundane has been fairly good.
… Let's not be sad it doesn't make your heart burn every time.
<amy> florian +1
fantasai: For questions of the overall direction, we can discuss in AB but we should clean up what we need and address open issues. Let's publish a Note.
Tzviya: I think we should try for November. Which is soon.
[Katheleen Lappe joins]
Tzviya: Welcome. we had a meta conversation and are now going to issues.
Issues with propose closing tag - lightning round
Issues
Tzviya: Chris and I discussed Issues we propose to close. I hope we can get through these quickly. If I find we're getting stuck I think we can bring to async discussions.
… The first is defining the world "industry." This goes back so far it's issue #10.
<florian> +1 to closing
<amy> +1 to close issue 10
<fantasai> +1
fantasai: I agree and I think a lot of language has shifted.
<gendler> +1 to closing
<tzviya> +1 to close
<Dingwei> +1
Tzviya: The next issue is #16. This goes back. Again this is pulled from an early repository: "recognize value from a wide variety of publishers." I believe this was addressed.
<fantasai> +1
<amy> +1 to close issue #16
<Dingwei> +1
<gendler> +1 to closing
<florian> +1
Ralph: This group did agree to close this previously, I believe.
Tzviya: I will close.
… Moving along. We're at Issue #53 from 6 months ago or so. This is clarifying use of the Vision doc
<fantasai:> https://
<fantasai:> I think this is well-addressed in the document
Tzviya: There's more discussion here. I believe there have been pull requests. There's been a lot of back and forth. I believe it's been clarified. If it hasn't we need a new issue as it goes on and on.
… There are a few pull requests and Chris points out it's a duplicate of issue #22.
… It's about refocusing the scope of the Vision.
Florian: I think we can close it. It doesn't destroy the discussion. People can open an issue if there are things to address but this is not in actionable form.
<gendler> +1 to florian
<fantasai> +1
<amy> +1 to close issue # 53
<fantasai> also +1 to close
… The next issue is #72.
It was addressed with refocusing in July.
... This was addressed with the rewrite and Nigel hasn't commented since then.
… Let me know if I'm going too fast.
<fantasai> +1 to close
<amy> +1 to close issue #72
<florian> +1
<gendler> +1 to closing as addressed by rewrite
remaining issues: [[w3c/
https://
<Ralph> [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]
Florian: I think this was addressed. David was thinking of different things. I think the core point of this issue has been addressed.
RESOLUTION: Close issue 10, 16, 53, 72
Tzviya: Next is issue #75. Chris and I felt we could have closed these on our own but in the interest of the harmony of the group we thought it would be good to review.
… #75 is on industry. It can likely be closed with the same comment.
fantasai: There was a need for edits but those were made.
Tzviya: I'm noting edits were made.
<amy> +1 to close #75
RESOLUTION: close 75
Tzviya: Issue #98. I thought we might get stuck on this one. It's on laws on consensus.
… It was filed by JamesR suggesting we take in competition legislation.
Mallory: 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.
<gendler> +1 mallory unsurprisingly
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to discuss laws
Amy: What Mallory said was very helpful. Another reason to close is that there's a misconception. We make voluntary standards.
... We are not a legal or governance body so that's another reason to close this.
fantasai: Agree with everything Mallory said, and +1 to close.
Ralph: And Tzviya can close the issue with a pointer to the minutes vs. abstracting from them.
Tzviya: I will do that.
Ralph: you can cite that ^^
RESOLUTION: Close 98
Tzviya: The last issue is #118. This is on demonstrating core principles.
... This was raised by Elika in the F2F meeting. Does the rephrasing capture this?
fantasai: It got addressed but the sentences a bit redundant. I made a PR to address changes.
… It is good to address better but we don't have to do that on the call.
Florian: This issue and #119 are related to values regarding to how we work and how they relate to what we produce.
… 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.
Tzviya: I've not yet had a chance to look at it. I'd rather not say today as Chris is on a plane.
Max: On the process as this is tied to other issues, it's come up in most recent comments, one Robin put in.
… It might have reference to it. Is it worth saying that it's closable considering how many other issues address it or is that not how the process works?
fantasai: They are different issues but solvable with the same method.
Ralph: Any other issues?
Tzviya: We have 5 minutes. We could tackle Issue #58 today.
<tzviya> w3c/
Ralph: I didn't know if you intentionally left 58 off the agenda? It's labeled "propose closing" too?
Tzviya: We could address that.
fantasai: It's a long issue.
Tzviya: Maybe we can address it next time.
fantasai: I took multiple implementations issue and made a pull request, I just wanted to bring that up.
Tzviya: Maybe we could add a contributing file to describe this. We won't add anything without our editor. He's on a plane.
<fantasai: > w3c/
Tzviya: We can look next time.
Florian: A quick editorial markup suggestion. Section 6 has a long list. I think people will want to refer to the items. Maybe we want to hyperlink to specific points on the list. I think people will appreciate that. If that's helpful I can add ids.
<amy> +1 to ids
fantasai: I think it's a good idea.
Tzviya: Please add an issue. I trust your skills but we're trying to model the behavior for everyone.
… Thanks all.
<fantasai> Note that the document has been updated on https://
... so we have an up-to-date version on /TR at this point