-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
Description
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 commentedon Feb 9, 2023
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:
Personally, I think we need (2), and I think we need it yesterday.
cwilso commentedon Feb 10, 2023
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:
darobin commentedon Feb 10, 2023
(Merging with w3ctag/ethical-web-principles#54 to try to help make this saner.)
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 commentedon Feb 10, 2023
@mnot wrote:
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 commentedon Feb 10, 2023
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:
michaelchampion commentedon Feb 10, 2023
At the risk of irritating all parties to this discussion:
darobin commentedon Feb 10, 2023
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 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:
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 commentedon Feb 10, 2023
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 commentedon Feb 10, 2023
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 commentedon Feb 11, 2023
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.
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 commentedon Feb 13, 2023
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?
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)
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 commentedon Feb 13, 2023
Chris,
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).
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.
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.
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 commentedon Feb 13, 2023
@michaelchampion said:
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:
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:
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 commentedon Feb 13, 2023
@darobin said:
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 commentedon Feb 13, 2023
@mnot wrote:
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