Summer 2021 elections

From Credibility Community Group

The group is holding an election for a new chair following the CG Template Charter Process. This wiki page is for candidates to list their candidacy and make a brief statement. They should also announce their candidacy via email to the list.

The deadline for candidates to announce is the end of 3 Aug 2021. Election was announced 20 July in email.


Aviv Ovadya. Some context on me: Here is some of my older writing related specifically related to credibility, and here is an example of a proposal for a world we could be aiming for (which would benefit from web standards so that central bodies aren't simply determining what is "authoritative"). This is a tentative candidacy; I may only take the role if I have a co-chair I'm excited to work with.

drew wallace In a nutshell, I want to push the Credibility Web further towards trust standardization through publishing a formally endorsed list of draft trust signals and a lightweight demonstration app, likely a browser toolbar, that abstracts the signals research and educates the user. My vision is that the previous excellent work of this group will power continued discussion with the digerati via the document synthesis and to begin discussion with the consumer via the demonstration toolbar.

I strongly believe this is the best way to continue research into the viability of the signals previously identified by the Credibility Web working group. I also believe a distilled, clear document and demonstration app is the best way to engage the industry using their twin languages of Powerpoint and code. Most importantly, giving news consumers tools and education now will give them a lot more time to prepare before the next election cycle. Details archived here.

Scott Yates. My platform for what I would do as chair of this group is this: Create a document that can be used to evaluate other efforts to fight disinformation. That is, instead of trying to come up with a solution, first come up with a definition of what a good solution looks like.

Right now we have dozens of efforts, and new ones pop up all the time. For whom are they helpful? Do they respect free expression? Do they have unintended negative consequences? How do they fit into the overall landscape? Nobody can answer any of those or a dozen other similar questions because there’s no document by which to make such an evaluation. I propose that we come up with such a document.

It would have as an underpinning the previous excellent documents from this group, and would build up from there. This new document would make it possible for the people behind anti-disinformation efforts to self-evaluate, and perhaps improve based on the guidelines contained in the document. We could also evaluate efforts as a community group, and we could encourage other similar groups (like the Credibility Coalition, of which I am a longtime member) to also use this document.

To do this most effectively, I would recommend that we expand this group to include some newsroom leaders, standards experts, and people behind some of the notable efforts out there. I will personally invite people, and would welcome the help of others in that.

A bit about me: I’m the founder of, caretaker of the trust.txt framework. I have also worked on the Journalism Trust Initiative. Before JournalList, a nonprofit, I started three technology companies, and before that I was a reporter. I live in Denver with my family, our mutt, and my dictionary collection. In my spare time I’m trying to fix Daylight Saving Time.