TPAC/2020/focus-values

From W3C Wiki
< TPAC‎ | 2020

W3C TPAC

Participants

  • Tantek Çelik (Mozilla, AB)
  • Dave Cramer (Hachette)
  • Chris Wilson (Google)
  • Jeffrey Yasskin (Google Chrome) (scribe)
  • Jen Simmons (Apple)
  • Chris Needham (BBC)
  • Boaz Sender (Bocoup)
  • Sheila Moussavi (Bocoup)
  • Theresa O'Connor (Apple)
  • Alan Stearns (Adobe)
  • Tzviya Siegman (Wiley)
  • Ivan Herman (W3C)
  • Joshua Koran (Zeta Global)
  • Jeff Jaffe (W3C)
  • David Singer (Apple)
  • Marie-Claire Forgue (W3C)
  • Nigel Megitt (BBC)
  • Annette Greiner (LBNL)
  • Alan Bird (W3C)
  • Philippe Le Hegaret (W3C)
  • Mark Nottingham (law student)
  • Avneesh (Daisy Consortium, on the AB)

Agenda

Background:

  • 2019 TPAC, led session on:

What is The Future of W3C: https://github.com/WebStandardsFuture/TPAC-2019-future

Since then, the W3C community has taken deliberate steps forward with expressing its values:

Many sessions this week touched on our core values, and reached beyond, building upon them:

Prompts:

  1. Can we find more consensus on our values to build on this momentum?
  2. What are the next stronger statements we should make?
  3. Can we rebuild our processes and decision-making based on community & values instead of authority & hierarchy? https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/393


Notes

Black on a dark color background text is hard to read <- Disable "Authorship colors" in the gear menu. <- Thanks!


  • Tantek introduces himself. Mozilla, Elected on the Advisory Board. Reads https://www.w3.org/2020/10/TPAC/breakout-schedule.html#focusvalues .
  • Tantek: As I was preparing, I realized I should recognize context. Last year's TPAC, I led a session on "what is the future of the W3C". Who participated in that? [Some folks raise hands] Since then the W3C has move forward quite significantly in expressing its core values. The TAG ethical web priniciples express core values in what we make. Also a brand new [CEPC](https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/8641). Also many sessions that built on our core values. [Creative Imagination for and Ethical Web](minutes: https://www.w3.org/2020/10/26-ethical-web-minutes.html). ~Half-dozen folks attended that. [What would it mean for the W3C to really prioritize users?](minutes: https://www.w3.org/2020/10/27-users1st-minutes.html) <- "beware of userwashing". [Consentful Communication on the web](minutes). These sessions expressed value above and beyond the Ethical Web Principles and the CEPC. Want to ask a number of questions.
    • 1. Can we find more consensus on our values beyond the existing ones?
    • 2. What are the next stronger statements we can make?
    • 3. Can we rebuild our processes and decision-making based on community & values instead of authority and hierarchy?
  • Anil Sardemann: I'm from Cologne, a private user. Thank you for having this conference. Important to be able to combine so many things on the web. Not so much a developer; I've worked in online marketing and advertising. Like to combine things, use APIs. Keep that vital on the web.
  • Jeff Jaffe: One of the important values is that we should be a forum for the open exchange of different views on the future of the web, including views that are opposed to each other. Want to openly disagree with a premise of this session. That we've been recruiting to get revenue without regard for how members' views will mesh with the web. Right now there's very constructive discussion in the web advertising business group. There's a vast array of stakeholders with different points of view. Don't think any of them have agendas that don't mesh with the good of the web. All of their perspectives are important. Want to record an openness to being a forum where all stakeholders can bring their perspectives.
  • +1 to what Jeff said - Alan Bird
  • +1 to what Jeff said - Joshua Koran
  • -1 to what Jeff said; see the session description: Much of the conflict in W3C recently is not about finding consensus on hard topics, but fundamental values conflict . It's a reasonable question to explore if W3C would be more effective in its mission if it focused on members that share core values. - EME is the obvious example; to avoid future things like that it would be useful to get a sense of whether the "freely available content" is a core value. Michael Champion
  • Mike, I don't understand the EME example. To get a sense of whether "freely available content" is a core value would have meant having the same debate that we actually had. - Jeff Jaffe
  • Tantek: Appreciate the challenging of ideas and perspectives. That is actually one of our values.
  • Tzviya Siegman: I'm with Wiley and on the AB. This came up in several of the sessions. Something that's highlighted in Mark Nottingham's Internet is for End Users (RFC 8890 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8890, https://www.mnot.net/blog/2020/08/28/for_the_users): In considering charters, which proposals should go REC track, and in the incubation process, we should consider what we think is important to promote. Our specs have been used for a great deal of good, but the web is not completely a place for good. Has also done a lot of harm. Invasions of privacy, exploitation, bias. What can we do from a standards perspective to help ensure that our standards promote good. Try to make the web a place that is good, not just technically sound.
  • Tantek: Want to encourage newbies, people who aren't W3C staff or on the AB to participate. Thanks Anil.
  • Avneesh: Daisy Consortium, on the AB, similar structure to W3C but for people with disabilities. If we look at the W3C's [mission page](http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission), https://open-stand.org/about-us/principles/ there are already a lot of values. We already have a lot of values documented. Even if we have the value, what's the mechanism for enforcing? When we talk about the core values, the main objective is to support the direction, by creating the culture we want in the organization. For internal working, values are important. When we look at the community, it's more about the scope. I partially agree with Jeff that we should have a little more focus, because new things come from unknown directions. What's the purpose of the existence of the W3C? We have (issues (https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/48, https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/52) on the tracker. How much should we expand from the core web? Purpose of core values should be to guide that decision-making.


  • Tzviya: +1 to avneesh
  • Josh Cohen: I'm a public attendee. From Microsoft, participated in IETF, ISO, other places, a little in W3C. View (?) as a social ... opens things up to more marginalized communities. If you look at recent government action, we shifted from interoperable protocols to walled gardens, which contribute to exclusionary behavior, which make it harder for marginalized communities to participate. Web of Things. Vendors are in proprietary ecosystems. What do we do in this organization if folks outside don't adopt the values? Those controls lead to exclusionary behavior. Are we trying to steer those members toward an open ecosystem, or is that how it is?
  • Jeffrey Yasskin: (Work at Google, on Chrome) One thing I've noticed in a lot of these discussions of values, or results of such discussion... I don't want to stop energy figuring out what the values are. But how do we apply them? One thing hard is taking it and apply it to new ???. How do you put it into practice in new specs? When trying to apply values to new specs, need to think about migration. Look for levers, ways to make it happen. Don't want to only ask what are our values, but how do we apply them?
  • +1 Jeffrey, and also how we resolve conflicts between values, when they arise - Chris Needham
  • Tantek: Yes, not just about coming up with values, but also about applying them.
  • Rick Byers: (Work for Google on Chromium) Last year I ran a values survey (https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/PMn4LYQ-0j4/m/VCBOKVUXAAAJ) of people in the community of what their values are. What do we have consensus on vs diverge on? One of the most diverse values was what's the role of the community on elevating the role of web standards. Can we ask our membership what the members are here for? Where do we already have consensus?
  • David Singer: AB member. Agree with Tzviya. One problem with unvoiced values is they can become memes and naive. "Technology is value neutral" <- people say "really?" Society looks at this as naive and that we (in a broad sense) are oblivious. Can't be proud of positive impacts without recognizing harms. Unvoiced values can't be used effectively or refined. We need to recognize that we're having a negative impact sometimes, and do what we can to address it.
  • Ivan: +1 to David Singer
  • +1 to David and Tzviya -- we can be proud of the web's accomplishments but we MUST come to grips with the harms it has create. Michael Champion
  • technology is *not* value neutral - Boaz Sender
  • Joshua Koran: Agree with David. All policies should be judged by the outcomes they produce. A society can be judged by how it supports expression of minority communities. Lots of recent developments have taken us back to the structure of the early internet, which was locked into proprietary businesses of Compuserve, AOL, and Prodigy. I agree with Josh C that many recent developments have been interfering with interoperability across the web. For today's conversation,I wonder how are views of small businesses incorporated into this conversation? We all want an open web, and that requires that publishers can operate their businesses. How do we balance user privacy rights of individuals with ability of small businesses to choose who they work with? We can agree that there are bad actors in every industry. I believe we should make it easier to detect bad actors and hold them accountable, rather than deciding which kinds of businesses are able to operate (given their lack of reliance on supply-chain vendors) or which vendors they can choose to work with, by making those decisions on their behalf.
  • Tantek: Want to assume folks here are assuming good intent; don't want to presume anyone here is a bad actor.
  • Dave Cramer: As we talk about the values of the W3C, an important question is who gets to be part of the conversation. The web is for end users, but the W3C has needs as an organization to support itself, so it has a membership model, which excludes some people from conversations about things that impact them.
  • +1 to Dave (Ivan)
  • dave++ (Tzviya)
  • +1 to Dave (Jeff)
  • Chris Wilson: Calling attention to AB work on the vision for the W3C. https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/Vision,
  • Annette Greiner: From the point of view of Experience Design. We talk about Dark Patterns, where the user is tricked into doing something that's not in their best interest. Can apply to design of specifications as well. Can push against specs that enable technology that isn't in the interest of users. Internet is for users. Value for a business is aligned with user interest in the long term. Difficult for businesses to focus on the long term. We can encourage that. We should be more welcoming to individuals, rather than only organizational membership. Get more input from people who identify more as end users than businesses.
  • +1 Annette (tzviya),
  • +1 Annette (cwilso)
  • Josh Cohen: I mentioned ecosystems like Smart Home and WoT stuff. If we ask the members how to address the scenario. Take a marginalized member who taught themselves to code, built something people want to buy. But can't afford the big ecosystems. Google, Amazon, etc. are members. The Human Rights Campaign has a quality index for companies and employers on how respectful they are of marginalized communities. Ask members questions like "Can Google Home, Apple Homekit to have enough interop with W3C WoT to let someone interoperate with them without licensing proprietary systems?" Let people take ideas and values, and turn it into execution. Measure by results. How do we get members to behave better?
  • +1 to Josh perhaps adding transparency labeling of how well W3C members honor W3C principles to help better ensure the future openness of the web + the need to measure the impact/results from member organization activities (Joshua Koran)
  • Tantek: Mike Champion has done more analysis. I see an overrepresentation from folks who are more privileged than not, in who participates and how much. Lots of work to do in the W3C.
  • Chris Wilson: Josh, I appreciate you bringing up the great work of the HRC. That score is almost what we're looking for here, but we have to know what we're scoring on. Need the values, and that's the hard part. Not scoring and being direct, but getting those values written down.
  • Josh: It's a negotiation. Companies want to get a good score, so there's wiggle room. Companies care what their score is, whether it's good or not. Creates social pressure. In gay rights movement there's a progression. Domestic partnerships, health insurance. They got added to the score. Created healthy competition. The question of what the W3C's criterion would be could be its own meeting. e.g. In Smart Home systems, where's the interoperability? Missing interop should be a demerit.
  • Tzviya: We have a few CGs that are working on inclusiveness and diversity (see https://www.w3.org/community/idcg/). Equity Review Board is cooking, which could help with Josh's question. See https://github.com/w3c/idcg/issues/14
  • Tzviya: We should be getting feedback from members about what the values should be, but many members have conflicting values. Need to have a way to decide. User needs around in advertising. We're going to see conflict in values, and we have to decide how we're going to move forward. Majority wins isn't necessarily right. Leadership decides? Who's leadership? AB? TAG? Jeff? This group might have input.
  • David Singer: I live in San Francisco and am deeply steeped in Western cultural values. Some societies value social cohesion and well-ordered society higher than western societies. Setting a set of values could be culturally hegemonic, and we might end up deadlocked. The UN did manage to produce the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think it can be done.
  • +1 to dsinger (annette_g)
  • David Singer: One article from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example:
    • Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
  • Jeffrey Yasskin: Someone mentioned what I'd call diversity of eco-system, various players having ability to participate. It can be frustrating to apply this, because big players only care about it while they think it can hurt their competitors. Principle hasn't been in Ethical Web Principles yet.
  • Jeff: We're in the process of spinning out the hosting institutions. W3C is becoming an independent entity. Want to re-launch and tell people clearly what values we stand for. Talking to funding institutions who might take this moment in time to provide additional funding, and they want to know our values. This has spurred some interest from the AB.
  • Sheila Moussavi: She/her, from Bocoup. We've made a good case for articulating particular values. Engagement from marginalized communities. One of the benefits of having listed values, is that people are more willing to participate. Having values clearly established in advance will help with the issue of engagement from marginalized communities. Not enough to just have the values, but need a way of evaluating and updating them, and ensuring they reflect a broad range of perspectives.
  • +1 Sheila (cwilso)
  • +1 Sheila (Tzviya)
  • Joshua Koran: Agree with Sheila and Josh. Want to write down the values and compare the work we do against those values. The transparency of this will help improve the overall process. Echo David, that it's difficult. Every society struggles to write down laws that can't be misinterpreted. And so we have courts and legal processes (wrt "grey" areas). It's not impossible, though, to write them down. We have history of thousands of years of precedent to help is with this. But make sure they don't end up as platitudes on a wall, but rather guiding principles.
  • Avneesh: Some more strategic issues for members. Would be nice to have the responses: https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/23, https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/46, https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/47
  • Chris Wilson: Strongly agree with Sheila. Re Annette: We should be more welcoming to individuals than just organizational members. Struggled with getting designers to show up to the CSSWG, for example. If anyone has ideas for how to be more welcoming to individuals (there are individuals here! Yay!) please tell us. I hope we're binding this into the Vision, and feel free to comemnt there. [Not calling out the CSSWG in particular. That was early days, and it's matured since then.]
  • <fantasai> Better documentation on how to participate would probably help. Hopefully W3C website redesign will help.
  • Jen Simmons: Happy to talk more about that. Lots of ideas, and I've gotten 4 women onto the CSSWG as Invited Experts. There aren't insurmountable barriers.
  • Mark Nottingham: It's been a really interesting discussion. I'm doing a lot of reading. "Competition and Digital Markets". Fascinating time. There's going to be a requirement for SDOs to address very different problems than we're used to. Lots of jurisdictions will be looking for legal solutions that mesh with technical solutions to solve problems we're seeing. Will require very different things from W3C. Lots of people see the W3C as dominated by big tech companies. See decisions as directed by big browser makers. How can the W3C change its decision-making process? How can it gain authority? Represent users, not just tech companies?
  • Tantek: Re-asking the question, and give places to follow up. Many people have said we should write down our values. We do have our values written down in several documents. How do we build on those values? Please work on answering that in those venues.
  • Joshua Koran: Values are great, but they're incomplete. Could be improved with greater representation of smaller organizations and focus on needs for principles around decentralization and the interoperability of information that supports this.
  • Boaz Sender: he/him: We should pay people from marginalized communities to participate and write the values.
  • +1 Boaz (Jeffrey)
  • +1 Boaz (annette_g)
  • Tantek: Thanks everyone!

Please note that all contributions are considered provided under a CC0 license and notes will be archived at W3.org.

Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=TPAC/2020/focus-values&oldid=112771"