Skip to content

Clarify intended use of the Vision document #53

@michaelchampion

Description

@michaelchampion

Discussion surrounding a now-closed issue in https://github.com/w3ctag/ethical-web-principles/issues suggests that the Vision document more explicitly state how it can be applied to W3C's opperations. Presumably some understanding of W3C's Values/Vision drives WG decisions, horizontal review, AC review of charters and PRs, and formal objections and their resolution. That's implicit in W3C practice today, but isn't spelled out AFAIK.

When there was an engaged Director, Sir Tim Berners-Lee was the ultimate definer and applier of values/vision for W3C's work. Without his engagement going forward, It would be useful to write down the Values/Vision that the Team, AC, FO Councils, etc. should consider authoritative. I had always assumed that was the purpose of this document, but I don't see it stated anywhere.

I don't have draft language to propose, but some questions:

  • Am I missing something in the document stating how the Values/Vision are supposed to be applied in practice?
  • Do others agree this document's purpose is to define the core set of principles the W3C community SHOULD apply in reviewing proposed charters and standards?
  • Would it be useful to strongly suggest that team decisions, formal objections, FO resolutions, etc. be explicitly justified (at least when challenged) with respect to how they promote the values and vision outlined in this document once it is ratified?
  • Do other foundational documents such as the Process, Bylaws, Member Agreement, etc. need to be modified to define or reference an authoritative Vision/Values statement, or can this document suffice to guide consensus-building?

Activity

mnot

mnot commented on Feb 9, 2023

@mnot
Member

Thanks for opening this issue, Michael, I was about to. This is a difficult topic, but I'd encourage the AB to listen carefully to Robin's concerns. I also suspect that if we can clearly articulate what the intended use of the document is, it might be easier to get broader participation.

To extend the issue just a bit -- once we understand the intended use, we will then need to assure that how it was created is appropriate to that use.

Saying that an AB document represents consensus isn't workable -- the most it can do is represent what the AB thinks. While the AB has consulted across many folks, the decisionmaking process is firmly in the hands of the AB; there's no mechanism to appeal decisions about it (and if there were, I suspect Robin would avail himself of it).

As a result, the document is effectively capturing what a set of long-time "insider" W3C participants think, not a community consensus. Yes, the AB could take it to the AC for ratification. That's not a substitute for a legitimate consensus process during the document's formation.

I can see two alternative paths forward for this work:

  1. The Vision document is explicitly an AB document that reflects what the AB thinks, and thus is only advisory in nature; it has no normative impact on how decisions are made at the W3C.
  2. The Vision document is re-scoped to a consensus document, ideally homed in a WG. Not a CG, Task Force, or other informal body. It is explicitly scoped to be binding on decisionmaking (and one of the complexities is how that happens, of course).

Personally, I think we need (2), and I think we need it yesterday.

cwilso

cwilso commented on Feb 10, 2023

@cwilso
Collaborator

That AB document does represent consensus of the AB - painfully so - and much of what you're seeing is a reaction to the suggestion that it is not a worthwhile effort, and should simply be thrown out and replaced by one person's work.

If you want to propose a Working Group, be my guest. I would point out that it isn't "re-scoping the Vision document", it would be "establish a Working Group to build consensus from the ground up on the Vision of the W3C, the principles by which it should operate, and some rule of rules to be binding on decisionmaking" (which sounds painfully like it would have to be embedded in the Process as well) - and it would need to start with a blank slate. I will put it mildly - I have concerns about the productivity of such a group, and I think it would be a mistake to start over. Getting real engagement and real work on building consensus, not just writing text, has been the hardest part of the AB Vision effort thus far.

I would say that I would expect the same credence paid to the AB's work as the TAG's Ethical Web Principles and Design Principles - not binding, perhaps, but pretty strong guidance. (And if you believe the EWP is binding, explain why, as it is not "consensus" either.) To Mike's point, I think these documents need to be pulled together so that we at least have a guide; making anything binding on decision-making at this point in the W3C's evolution is going to be a gargantuan effort.

I'm concerned by the characterization that the Vision is "what a set of long-time "insider" W3C participants think, not a community consensus" and "there is no mechanism to appeal decisions about [the Vision document]" - because while technically that's true (the AB has not even published this as a Note), we have not been ignoring feedback and input. Robin offered input, responded once, and then went silent on his own principle. You make it sound like Robin has been ignored systematically - this is not the case. We've been trying to agree on basic principles prior to detailing how we expect the organization to enforce those principles.

I agree that the Vision needs to be turned into actionable tactics for the W3C. I disagree that that step comes before even agreeing to the basic principles.

To answer Mike's questions:

  • Yes, I do believe this document's purpose is to define the core set of principles the W3C community SHOULD apply in reviewing proposed charters and standards, as well as the process of developing those standards.
  • I believe it would be better, a la the TAG's EWP and Design Principles, to deliver something in the nearer term rather than boil the ocean of rewriting the Process, bylaws, member agreements, etc first. I would point out that the Bylaws were not written by consensus, nor were the member agreements.
darobin

darobin commented on Feb 10, 2023

@darobin
Member

(Merging with w3ctag/ethical-web-principles#54 to try to help make this saner.)

Robin offered input, responded once, and then went silent on his own principle.

Chris, it would help a lot if you tried to present facts in a manner more conducive to making progress towards some common ground. The topic at hand is the general approach to how to do values & vision, which is specifically called out as a key motivating factor in the PR: "this PR seeks to do two things: 1) to experiment with a longer format" all the way to "I am eager to hear what your take on this is." I specifically broke out the PR in a separate file because it's an experiment, to make it easier for the AB to evaluate it as such.

The whole of the feedback from the whole of the AB on this is David's "I think we're going to have enormous fun taking grand statements of high principles, in a Vision document, and working out what they mean in detail and practice." Hey, I agree, and I like the sentiment, but can we agree that that's not a lot to go on?

Looking more specifically at the interactions on the issue over time, there was a first short discussion in April 2021 which I participated in and that ended with David talking about drafting something, which seems like a satisfactory direction to me. Then there's a flurry of further comments fourteen months later in August 2022, and not about the issue at hand. Again, I'm not trying to blame the AB or anyone, we all get busy. I'll be the first to admit that I dropped the ball in August — life happened, I was distracted with interviewing for new jobs and death in the family, and I expect that life happens just as much to others. What I'm getting at here is that, however, I don't think that it's accurate to represent the current doc as supported by the intensive work of a vibrant community. I also don't think that it's accurate to represent that my input is being seriously considered when the entirety of the feedback is that it would be fun to do, and then going entirely dark on the question.

Again, to repeat the point because I would very much like to get past the wall of defensiveness here: no matter how much consensus there is inside the AB, and no matter how painful that was to achieve (which I totally, totally believe and sympathise with), that does not mean that the document is supported by broad consensus in the community that gives it some kind of protected status. Revisiting the approach is legitimate. Does the doc have more consensus than a proposal I wrote yesterday? I would hope so? Is it useful to compare the consensus of 3-4 people here and 9-10 people there? I really don't think so.

Mark rightly points at the issue of legitimacy. I think that's the absolutely core issue. It's a key part that my proposal tries to address by grounding our values in a process we already have, that has stood the test of time, that has been developed by a huge community — and seeing how we can use that as a platform to build more of that. It's entirely possible that my proposal isn't the right one or is a bad implementation even if it's the right one, but it's at least a constructive and I believe credible attempt to get at this.

I don't want to go twenty rounds discussing whether the AB should have processed my input this or that way; I only brought that up to explain that I don't think it's fair or justified to claim that the process has been diligent. Bygones, etc. I don't care.

But can we please, please move to a constructive place where we agree that it's not hostile or disrespectful or insulting to think that the current approach needs rethinking in order to get a legitimate outcome? I'd be happy to put energy into helping corral public discussion, but that's going to be a lot less pleasant if the AB doesn't agree that we can make significant change along the way.

michaelchampion

michaelchampion commented on Feb 10, 2023

@michaelchampion
Author

@mnot wrote:

  • The Vision document is explicitly an AB document that reflects what the AB thinks, and thus is only advisory in nature; it has no normative impact on how decisions are made at the W3C.
  • The Vision document is re-scoped to a consensus document, ideally homed in a WG. Not a CG, Task Force, or other informal body. It is explicitly scoped to be binding on decisionmaking (and one of the complexities is how that happens, of course).

I'm retired from the Process CG and AB, but as I understand it the AB plans to propose elevating the Vision document to W3C Statement Status https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#memo once it is stable, widely reviewed, FOs processed, and the AC approves. That's exactly what a WG would have to do. So, the AB Vision would be as much of a "consensus document" as any Recommendation.

I agree the document needs some work to be "scoped to be binding on decision making"

frivoal

frivoal commented on Feb 10, 2023

@frivoal
Contributor

I'm retired from the Process CG and AB, but as I understand it the AB plans to propose elevating the Vision document to W3C Statement Status https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#memo once it is stable, widely reviewed, FOs processed, and the AC approves. That's exactly what a WG would have to do. So, the AB Vision would be as much of a "consensus document" as any Recommendation.

Exactly.

The first step along that path would be to publish it as a Note, which we should do soon. Reasons it has not happened yet include:

  • that process did not exist when the document was started
  • We had that Legal Entity on our radar, and that kept us somewhat busy for a little while.
  • We have this director-free thing on our radar, and that too kept us somewhat busy (and still does. It's about to wrap but, but not in the past yet).
michaelchampion

michaelchampion commented on Feb 10, 2023

@michaelchampion
Author

At the risk of irritating all parties to this discussion:

  • I think Mark and Robin make some good points -- the Vision document needs a lot of work to give a clear vision of where W3C should go and more concrete guidance on what values should be promoted/protected in drafting and reviewing standards.
  • But I disagree that some new process or venue would help. We should all double down on reviewing and proposing changes to the document in this repo and not bikeshed about legitimacy, etc. The AB are the legitimate owners of this and let's not undermine them!
  • That said -- and I know I've irritated AB people with this assertion in the past, sorry -- the AB could try harder to encourage the broader community to engage. I personally have felt somewhat disempowered as fairly strong "we need to do this!" language in early drafts I helped write got watered down to be less "negative". OK, my bad for just giving up rather than filing comments on PRs and alternative PRs... but AB folks could do better too.
  • The biggest takeaway I got from Robin's start-from-scratch proposal in another repo was this issue: The purpose of the Vision exercise is to define some core principles to guide actual spec and charter drafting / reviewing, not to write platitudes. Not all W3C members are going to agree with the result, and some will formally object, and a few probably leave in protest the the FOs are overturned. So be it. Better to have a critical mass of people pursuing a concrete vision of a better web than hide disagreements under bandages to fester into formal objections and political battles forever.
darobin

darobin commented on Feb 10, 2023

@darobin
Member

I like your "irritate everyone" approach Mike, thanks for putting that together. (I'm not irritated though.) One thing I want to insist on and get out of the way: I did not "start from scratch in my own repo," I put together an illustration of what I think a more robust & usable approach would be because just describing it was clearly not getting across.

Just a few quick points:

  • I don't have a strong perspective on who is the "legitimate owner" but I do believe that the legitimacy of the output document hinges entirely on being produced by a vibrant community process. I think that this is more than "try harder to encourage the broader community to engage." Community engagement leading to consensus should be the one and only metric of success. The active participants might end up being a small community, but we should insist that it represent broad and diverse interests, and that it isn't just the same old us, much as I like hanging out with you all. For that to work, there needs to be a clear value proposition that shifting the direction of that document will produce real-world change in how the W3C and the Web work. No one's going to show up if it doesn't feel like it can change things.
  • I think that it would be a serious misstep to take the current document and ship it as a Statement-track Note. This would send the signal that this document is somehow the de facto way in which vision/values are captured, which will be used as a reason to shut down alternatives (as we've seen). The document simply does not have the legitimacy supporting it to justify that status. There are groups in the broader governance community (like the Ostrom Workshop or Metagov) that I would like to hear from since this is supposed to be load-bearing in web governance. I'm somewhat confident that they won't have anything to say about the current version and we won't gain traction generating involvement.
  • To belabour the point, this is not a reflection on document quality. Even if this were my most favourite reading ever, I would still object to its publication. It just doesn't have the legitimacy that it needs to have. This isn't an internal doc; this is for the Web.
  • I agree with Mark that this needs to be done in a formal venue that provides the typical process guarantees. Putting it on the Statement track definitely helps, but there's work that needs to happen before that matching what we'd expect from a group — like for instance a call for participation, a clear and welcoming venue for people to help with and discuss, chairs and editors, calls, etc. Just putting it in a repo and talking to the AC doesn't pass the bar; we'd expect more from a group working on something less important! Maybe it doesn't need to be a WG, but it needs to enforceably and legitimately quack like a WG.

I would like to encourage us all to focus on making the vision document unassailably legitimate. This will be even more irritating, but I think that requires:

  • A charter, that calls lists goals and sets the process for the work. If it's not a WG it should be like one. Maybe a STMT-track work item hosted by the AB can pass muster, I'm open to hearing about option.
  • A call for participation. I think that it should emanate jointly from the AB, TAG, and Board, and it should be supported by communication. A list of parties to reach out to so as to garner community participation (compare this list we made for the privacy work).
  • A chair or chairs, and the paraphernalia we associate with work items. Likely a cadence of calls and meetings, perhaps not super frequent but real nonetheless (and for all the people involved, not just the AB).
  • Perhaps even a workshop.

Is this work and pain? Yup. Is it irritating? Almost certainly. But we can't just ship a vision document that is produced in a manner that contradicts what it's saying. I realise that this offers nothing more than further blood, toil, tears, and sweat. I hope that we can be swift; I'm adamant that we can't be insular.

michaelchampion

michaelchampion commented on Feb 10, 2023

@michaelchampion
Author

there needs to be a clear value proposition that shifting the direction of that document will produce real-world change in how the W3C and the Web work.

Right. My involvement with the Vision work as a retirement hobby starting around TPAC 2020 started from a sense that W3C was at another inflection point: In its first few years, It really DID help "lead the web to its full potential" by defining the open web platform (HTML, CSS, DOM, the "web apps" APIs) and did a pretty good job of ensuring they were accessible and internationalized. Then it was fairly successful for another 10-15 years focusing on making the implementations of the web platform truly interoperable. But now it needs to pivot again: is clear that the web enables fraud, abuse of personal information, and misinformation as well as enabling commerce, facilitating communication, and sharing knowledge . Can W3C really do anything about that? I'm not sure, but the first step is to acknowledge the problem, resolve to re-focus on the integrity and not just raw functionality of the web platform, and implement that resolve in the actual operation W3C's standards and advocacy work.

To be blunt, I'm not AT ALL sure W3C can pivot to become a referee of the web's integrity rather than a cheerleader for web technology, a technocracy for incrementally improving it, and perpetually seeking the "next big thing" that will attract and retain paying members. I have SOME hope that strong and clear vision of the principles that would guide chartering, reviewing, and communicating about web platform standards can help. I'm not happy about the changes to the draft vision document the AB has made trying to make it more less "annoying" to the broader W3C community. But holding workshops, inventing WG-like groups to take responsibilities away from the AB/TAG, worrying about abstract governance philosophy, etc. seem more like bikeshedding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality than getting on with the hard work and figuring out what principles (e.g. privacy) are worth fighting for.

As for legitimacy, I suggest focusing more about the beneficial consequences https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legitimacy/#BenCon of a coherent, operational Vision than the process of creating it. Strong consensus (everyone in the community can live with it) is not likely; there is no Director to appeal to to resolve objections. W3C has (or hopefully will soon have) a Director-free process that can plausibly get "W3C consensus" on a Vision, that that will work roughly the same whether it is an AB statement, a WG Recommendation, or some new process. So their relative "legitimacy" doesn't seem worth arguing about. But what ULTIMATELY gives the Vision legitimacy are the benefits to the organization, the web, and the larger society from adopting and acting on vision/values as soon as possible.

So let's resolve to file substantive issues to improve the current draft's guidance to spec developers, reviewers, and advocates.

darobin

darobin commented on Feb 10, 2023

@darobin
Member

I totally agree that W3C needs to pivot; what I believe it needs to pivot to is governance. Governance (of automated human/computer systems at planetary scale) is the biggest unsolved problem in tech. The majority of our more pressing problems boil down to the fact that we've built a world in which might makes right, in which collective action is near impossible, etc.

The W3C needs to decide if it's just standardising the Web SDK, or if it own stewardship of the Web. If it's the former, then governance doesn't matter much, but we also don't need a document that says our SDK is "for all humankind." That's kinda weird for an SDK. I think we (and many in the the wider community) largely want the latter. I also think that a strong, credible story about governance for the Web — not just that we are pivoting to it but that we have a treasure trove of experience with how to go about it (as offered by horizontal review) is a powerful hook to get funding.

Setting up the Board, updating the Process on a cadence, going Director-free — all these things are headed in the same direction. This doc should be part of that.

But we can't pivot to the thing without doing the thing. I can be convinced that we might not have to do all the things I listed, but not that a small coterie of insiders are legitimate in setting the vision for the web. We just aren't. I can't pretend that we are.

I'm repeating myself, but the key feature of the approach I have repeatedly advocated is that it relies on building from the massive successful investment in practical values that we already have as developed by the whole community. The specifics of the text don't matter; what matters in that approach is that we can establish the most lightweight frame possible with which to enshrine the outstanding work of the community, work that is supported by extensive consensus and that impacts real standards work every day. And having done that, we can use the existing process to keep iterating.

michaelchampion

michaelchampion commented on Feb 11, 2023

@michaelchampion
Author

The W3C needs to decide if it's just standardising the Web SDK, or if it own stewardship of the Web. ... I think we (and many in the the wider community) largely want the latter

I think we've reached the heart of the matter here: I originally saw agreement in the community as the first step toward W3C becoming an effective steward of the web, and the Vision is the vehicle for getting internal consensus to make that pivot. You apparently think there is much agreement already on the stewardship mission and it's time to get on with the specifics of a governance system.

The TAG thread discussion and your proposal that spun out of it did convince me that the Vision needs to be less abstract and exhortative, and offer concrete, practical guidance to steer charters and PR transition reviews toward stewardship. Yes, we can do a better job of building a critical mass of support for a stewardship mission by being specific about what the values we are promoting and how W3C standards work can help.

Governance (of automated human/computer systems at planetary scale) is the biggest unsolved problem in tech. The majority of our more pressing problems boil down to the fact that we've built a world in which might makes right, in which collective action is near impossible, etc.

Woo... I think the best we can do for now is to harness W3C's collective brainpower and connections to actual product and policy makers to wrestle with the larger (possibly unsolveable) problem while doing what we can to nudge the web in a better direction. But again, that starts by getting a critical mass of the web/W3C community to accept the negative consequences of the web and the need for a stewardship mission. From what I can tell from this repo, e.g. #22 and #14 which continues WebStandardsFuture/Vision#12 ), that is still controversial.

I hope we can close those issues (and this one) with an acknowledgement of the web's serious problems and a consensus to pivot W3C's mission toward addressing them. In other words, to craft a Vision that is NOT a "document that says our SDK is for all humankind" but an acknowledgement W3C needs to move beyond 1990s techno-utopianism and adapt its culture and processes to both improve the web's technology and address its adverse consequences. The more specific and concrete the vision, values, and criteria for improvement are, the better the Vision will be.

dwsinger

dwsinger commented on Feb 13, 2023

@dwsinger
Contributor

I am actually fairly lost in what Robin and Mark see as problems here, and I think there may be misconceptions.

For example, I'm not even sure whether the concerns are about the content of the document, or the way it's being developed.

If it's the content about the vision for the web, which of the following would more closely capture the concern?

  1. A Vision for the web that doubles down on values is the wrong vision, wrong direction.
  2. Values-based is the right direction, but these are not the right values.
  3. These values are fine, but there are more that should be included.
  4. This set of values is mostly fine, but the next step is missing, how they are connected to changes in our processes that will help us use these values to guide our operation and decisions.

If it's that the document mixes a vision for the web with a vision for the w3c, that's already been noted, and also that the two do have overlap or intersection.

If it's about the process of development, I think there is a fundamental misconception here and I don't know how it arose. Mark says, above "Saying that an AB document represents consensus isn't workable -- the most it can do is represent what the AB thinks." There's an assumption in here that it is an AB-owned document. On the contrary, the AB (among other things)

  • recognized that we no longer had an engaged Director whose visions and principles we could rely on to come into play when needed
  • saw that our existing vision "lead the web to its full potential" is tired, short, and doesn't help us discriminate, make hard decisions
  • realized that the W3C would need external support, and we'd need to explain to potential supporters why w3c and our future work matter.
  • saw that as representatives of the membership it was for the AB to catalyze, jump-start, the community work here.

So, the AB listened (e.g., on the values point, to an ex-AB member, Mike here), and took the initiative, got text written, brought it repeatedly to the membership explicitly asking for input, supplied an editor, and have curated the process of consensus. That the AB took the initiative is not something to complain about, but applaud. It would not have happened otherwise.

Complaining that proposed edits didn't simply get accepted side-steps the question of whether the proposed edits got consensus. After some years work, getting consensus that something is an improvement isn't always easy (I've had to work at it).

Complaining that it represents itself as a consensus document is also missing the point: that's the target, and that's how it's being developed, but it's not done. The AB started this and sees this as a document the community needs. No, it's not "done", and the AB has not yet asked to get more formal community buy-in for this. I think the plan there is to make it into a Note and then take it through the Statement process to get consensus.

If the vision is fine as it is, but we have not yet done the next level of work, to work out how it becomes actionable, how our processes and actions will be modified to take it into account – make a suggestion. Please don't reject it because it's lacking something – supply that something. Likewise, I have a concern that we don't have enough 'specific features' or 'new things' in there, and that in some sense it's a 'mitigate harms' vision which could be seen as addressing a negative rather than proposing a positive; perhaps these could be addressed (e.g. by the TAG?).

In summary, I strongly agree that we, the W3C community, do need a new sense of vision for the future, and I think that the AB and the many contributors here have worked on it for and with the community, and we should be thanking them and helping.

mnot

mnot commented on Feb 13, 2023

@mnot
Member

Chris,

That AB document does represent consensus of the AB - painfully so

Of course. My point is that the AB's consensus -- even if ratified by an AC vote -- is not a great reflection of community consensus, especially on a document that's so foundational. Yes, I understand that you've asked for feedback and consulted with various folks -- however, it's a document that reflects what the AB thinks about that, not one that the community has significant ownership of.

This happens sometimes in the IETF; the IAB comes up with a document purporting to reflect the consensus of the community, and are firmly reminded that there's a process for that and exactly one way to do it. However, they're more than welcome to write documents reflecting what the IAB feels (often after consulting with the broader community).

I would say that I would expect the same credence paid to the AB's work as the TAG's Ethical Web Principles and Design Principles - not binding, perhaps, but pretty strong guidance. (And if you believe the EWP is binding, explain why, as it is not "consensus" either.) To Mike's point, I think these documents need to be pulled together so that we at least have a guide; making anything binding on decision-making at this point in the W3C's evolution is going to be a gargantuan effort.

So it sounds like your intention is path (1) above -- the document is advisory / persuasive, not binding, and it reflects AB consensus, not community consensus. I agree this is a pragmatic path forward to getting something out without a massive delay (and likely much gnashing of teeth), if we acknowledge its limits.

However, it's not clear that that's what's happening; Mike seems to have the impression that it's going to be a Statement, which is more like path (2). I think turning this document into a Statement at some point in the future after some community review process that's more than waving it by the AC might be a good step, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

I'm concerned by the characterization that the Vision is "what a set of long-time "insider" W3C participants think, not a community consensus" and "there is no mechanism to appeal decisions about [the Vision document]" - because while technically that's true (the AB has not even published this as a Note), we have not been ignoring feedback and input.

There's a huge gulf between "we take feedback and input" and "we followed a process with broad stakeholder involvment, oversight, appeals mechanisms, transparency, and consequences for abuse of power." I would think that folks had seen enough of the former approach in recent times.

Robin offered input, responded once, and then went silent on his own principle. You make it sound like Robin has been ignored systematically - this is not the case. We've been trying to agree on basic principles prior to detailing how we expect the organization to enforce those principles.

How Robin interacts with the AB is not my primary concern on this issue; I suspect the AB and Robin need to work that out separately. I'm concerned with what happens when this document is relied upon to support a contentious decision, and stakeholders come away feeling that it doesn't represent them, and that it couldn't have because of how it was created.

Since Robin mentioned the Board -- this is not wearing my Board hat; at this point I believe that while some aspects of this might have impact on the Team, they're operational.

darobin

darobin commented on Feb 13, 2023

@darobin
Member

@michaelchampion said:

I think we've reached the heart of the matter here: I originally saw agreement in the community as the first step toward W3C becoming an effective steward of the web, and the Vision is the vehicle for getting internal consensus to make that pivot. You apparently think there is much agreement already on the stewardship mission and it's time to get on with the specifics of a governance system.

I like this framing, Mike, thanks. I would suggest taking it one step further: I don't think that we can produce or prove agreement on either the stewardship mission or the specifics of governance without driving that work in a manner that aligns with what the stewardship itself entails. Irrespective of the level of consensus in the AB, this has to come from and be made by the community.

@dwsinger wrote:

For example, I'm not even sure whether the concerns are about the content of the document, or the way it's being developed.

A key point is that these two cannot be separated, or at least cannot be separated given the intended values. One way to understand the double concern is in terms of input and output legitimacy:

  • Input legitimacy would be about how the doc is produced, eg. a broad consensus of very different constituencies or mostly just a small number of folks like us with tremendous access. The doc is much more of the latter.
  • Output legitimacy would be about how the doc can work in the trenches in that it can help navigate contentious discussions (not answer them of course, but support them). To take a real example: is a consent popup enough to guarantee privacy? The doc doesn't help with that.

My suggestion — and again, it is only a suggestion, which I've been trying to explain in several ways — is that we can make a different trade-off. Instead of starting from scratch and listing all the values we could aspire to, we start from what we already have: a foundation of detailed, concrete values documents that already enjoys both kinds of legitimacy, a tried and true method to enforce them, and a process to produce more. I suggest that we then give that existing foundation a lightweight frame to enshrine it as such, and possibly list the areas that it doesn't cover which we would like to see some work on (and this could use the AB's doc as input).

michaelchampion

michaelchampion commented on Feb 13, 2023

@michaelchampion
Author

@darobin said:

we start from what we already have: a foundation of detailed, concrete values documents that already enjoys both kinds of legitimacy, a tried and true method to enforce them, and a process to produce more.

As I understand the situation, there is no "foundation of detailed, concrete values documents" at W3C. W3C was guided by Tim Berners-Lee's values and vision for a worldwide web in the early years. It wasn't written down AFAIK, but the Team and other participants developed a reasonably clear shared understanding of the fundamental values as they applied to web technology.

The problem is, the web's technology and business models have evolved rapidly, as Tim disengaged. The AB, as I understand it, is trying to make the shared values more explicit, and (one can hope) specific enough to guide tradeoffs among between traditional values like "free", "private", "secure" and emerging values such as "sustainable".

I see the AB leading a community effort to do more or less what you are suggesting. Have they missed some concrete values documents to normatively reference? Have they missed some values they should reference? Have they invented some that aren't real W3C community values? If so, this is an open GitHub repo, anyone in the "community" can file issues or PRs.

michaelchampion

michaelchampion commented on Feb 13, 2023

@michaelchampion
Author

@mnot wrote:

This happens sometimes in the IETF; the IAB comes up with a document purporting to reflect the consensus of the community, and are firmly reminded that there's a process for that and exactly one way to do it.

Could you point us to the IETF community's "exactly one way to do it" community consensus process? And maybe examples of it working well for a "human" matter like values / vision as opposed to a "technical" protocol standard?

59 remaining items

Loading
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    Project VisionVision and PrinciplesduplicateThis issue or pull request already exists

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

        Participants

        @darobin@mnot@frivoal@cwilso@TzviyaSiegman

        Issue actions

          Clarify intended use of the Vision document · Issue #53 · w3c/AB-public