Increase input and positivity

[jwrosewell]

How will we ensure this vision for the Web reflects the views of the 4.5 billion people that use it? Should we assemble input that reflects the views and requirements of a wide set of different stakeholder groups? If the vision is primarily about users, we should ask them, or at least obtain clear input concerning their requirements.

I would like to see the following aspects more widely debated before an important draft is settled.

1. 50% of the introduction paragraph is exceptionally negative and narrow. It is depressing and leaves the reader on a low. All technologies from stones to uranium have caused harm. Why pick just these specific harms listed? Should we widen to a broader set of harms, or perhaps take a more positive tone and drop the negativity?

2. Who will speak for users and measure the success of this vision? In my nearly one year engaging with W3C it seems everyone speaks for users. Everyone does not agree.

3. The vision references other documents. A vision should stand alone, be short and easy to understand by everyone. I assume this document will be an integral document for new member induction and become a recruiting tool for increased web engagement. Can the references be moved to an appendix?

4. I would like to see competition and climate change added to the list that is currently limited to “accessibility, internationalization, security, and privacy”.

5. The vision should involve a broader range of stakeholders than those that proactively engage with the W3C today. Whilst creating a draft charter for a Decentralized Web Interest Group I was provided feedback that suggested some of the goals of that group were W3C wide and therefore did not require a specific group. What elements from that charter could be encapsulated in this Vision? The contributors and supporters of the DWIG draft charter represent a wide group of stakeholders.

6. The vision should be clear about the boundaries between businesses, governments and W3C. We would not want to take on the role of law makers for example, nor would we wish to be ignorant of relevant laws.

[michaelchampion]

It is depressing and leaves the reader on a low. All technologies from stones to uranium have caused harm.

The whole point of any Vision document is to focus an organization's efforts on building a better future. That requires identifying the problems it hopes to fix. I've contributed to this Vision document in hopes of getting W3C to be much more conscious of the harm web technology has caused and do what it can to promote technologies that mitigate the damage. Acknowledging unpleasant realities is not "negative", it's the first step toward positive change.

Who will speak for users and measure the success of this vision?

That is an excellent question. The current Vision does note the "priority of constituencies built on the excellent work from the TAG's Ethical Web Principles and the HTML Design Principles." That's the vision; how the vision gets realized is a question for the community to answer as it builds standards. But I'd happily support more powerful Vision language about who the "users" are and how W3C can better address their needs.

the list that is currently limited to “accessibility, internationalization, security, and privacy”.

I would prefer the list focus on values that W3C has the power to influence. Those 4 are the ones W3C has the most ability to influence. It had made great progress in the past 25 years making the web technologies usable by people with different abilities and by people with diverse languages and cultures; I hope that increased effort on security and privacy will be just as successful in a few years.

I would support adding "sustainability" to the canonical list of values. BUT let's face it, reducing the web's energy consumption to zero would not significantly affect the global climate. Still, as stewards of the web platform we can help encourage web producers and consumers to favor technologies that have the greatest benefit in return for their environmental cost. Making the values consideration clearer -- e.g. the security value of HTTPS vs the impact of additional computation -- could and IMHO should be part of W3C's deliberations. Building a profile of the energy impact by the individual parts of the web ecosystem, including encryption, animation and video, cryptocurrency mining, blockchain, and ad technology would be helpful, but not exactly W3C's area of competence.

Personally, I'd like to see the Vision sharper position on "privacy." I'd like to see stronger assertions that users MUST give informed consent to be tracked, and a commitment to minimize the ability to use APIs to "fingerprint" users without their knowledge and consent. Finding consensus on these issues will be a challenge given the business models of many W3C members. Nevertheless, if we really do prioritize the interests of users over the business interests of the members, W3C's stewardship could improve the integrity of the web.

[cwilso]

@michaelchampion I would welcome suggestions to expand the privacy focus, noting that I'm sure we will need much discussion to reach consensus.

@jwrosewell on your points: 1) My take is essentially the same as @michaelchampion here. I do not think this is excessively negative; it recognizes our success (paragraph one) before acknowledging some of the unintended consequences we have causes, and the challenges we have ahead (paragraph two). If there are additional unintended consequences or distresses you think should be added here, please suggest them. I think sugarcoating where the web is today will lead nowhere good.

2) As Mike said - the Priority of Constituencies does cover this to some degree, and there are certainly many points of view about what "users" want, and what benefits them. However, I do think we have rough consensus across the W3C about who "users" ARE, at least. I don't believe any single Member or entity speaks for all users.

3) I think the references have now all been moved, and we will continue to clean this up.

4) I do not understand "competition" in this reference; it would seem you're suggesting we should have a bullet that says "we champion competition"? (sorry, the text has changed somewhat around this area since you made this comment. Please note that we do explicitly say we must "Ensure the Web does not favor centralization".

On climate change, I'm opposed to adding this. (For the record - I am a very strong advocate of addressing climate change.) I do not see how we would improve the W3C's mission by adding this, as I don't see how this concretely affects our principles in practice, our purpose, or our strategic goals. If you have some more concrete ideas of how you see this fitting in, I'm willing to discuss - Mike's "sustainability" is more on point, but still not something I see the W3C Membership getting behind soon. If you want to take this up, please fork another issue for it alone, and let's discuss there.

5) I think elements of your proposed charter did end up here - the focus on unintended consequences, e.g. - but I'd like to ask YOU the question - what elements from that charter do you believe are missing from this Vision?

6) I believe we're steering well clear of those boundaries right now; if you don't agree, please give me some idea of changes we could make.

[jwrosewell]

1. Positivity: Perhaps we might gain the views of a colleagues who will be responsible for raising sponsorship and membership and who would wish to refer to the vision as a recruiting tool?

I understand your points, but they do not make for an inspiring and motivational vision.

Technologies have caused harm whether they are stones or uranium. We should recognize freedom and people having free will without seeking to limit choice. That means acknowledging bad things will happen and focusing on helping identify perpetrators and discouraging them. To do other wise is to fall foul of the proverb “One’s utopia is another’s dystopia”.

2. Users: Priority of constituents should be replaced and added to the vision. It is very important, but buried in other documents. The vision should be clear about how users’ requirements and views are obtained. This might include proactive outreach, polling, or (see point 6) working with governments.

3. References: Thank you. I’m yet to fully review the revised text.

4a. Competition: The web facilitates markets in many forms. Many of the W3C members operate in one or more of those markets. The vision needs to explicitly state that the W3C supports open and competitive markets and will not interfere in the operation of those markets. If the W3C wish to gain new members and donors, then these are likely to be businesses that care about markets and will see the W3C as irrelevant if it does not support open markets. The vision needs to be clear on this matter.

4b. Environment: If the vision is silent on the most important subject facing humanity then how can we expect to drive change? Every industry has a vision that includes climate change. Why not the W3C? Our silence will seem odd.

5. Decentralization: State that the W3C will proactively identify the unintended consequences of proposed changes to the web, not merely be mindful.

6. Boundaries: No one voted for the W3C. In democracies elected politicians make the laws. Therefore, the W3C should acknowledge it does not exceed the requirements set by law makers.

[michaelchampion]

Considering this issue thread and other conversations today about the lack of "positivity" in the draft Vision ... I looked at one of the great "vision statements" of the last century, Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech from 1963 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream . We remember it for its upbeat ending, especially

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

But It starts with a quite "negative and narrow" tone:

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free; one hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination; one hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity; one hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself in exile in his own land.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note in so far as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.”

So, I'm even more convinced that it would be both appropriate and effective to structure the Vision statement by pointing out unpleasant current realities, then present a vision of a better world once those problems are alleviated.

[dwsinger]

I think that there is a fairly common perception that "web people" see the web as all good and don't admit that there are problems (this is pretty common in the tech. field), and that some will find it "positive" and encouraging that the w3c is willing to acknowledge and (to the extent possible) deal with the negatives. As Mike says, we're not at the incipient stage of the web, selling a dream; we're 25 years in, dealing with a reality and having to say how the dream and the reality differ.

I think word-smithing can be done, but I also think that addressing reality and fixing mistakes is a good message.

[dwsinger]

On a re-read, a year later, I agree that the negative should not lead the introduction. We need to state the positive vision we have, first, and then admit where we fall short of that.

[TzviyaSiegman]

See also #29, making this more narrative