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?

I certainly don't think I have an entrenched or entrenching position, as that would imply that I understood something well enough to oppose it, and I still don't. Perhaps this comment from Robin helps me understand a little better:

Before parting I will simply note my dissent. I personally do not believe that producing documents without the accompanying means to hold ourselves accountable to them is in line with the practices and values of the W3C, and doing so fails to further its mission. Barring meaningful progress on this issue I don't anticipate to be able to vote in favour of the resulting Statement.

I have two problems here. The first is the assumption that if we adopt consensus values, as a consortium (Statement), we'd want to but have no way to enforce them. I don't think that assumption is true today:

once we have consensus values, they can be used by, and referred to by, anyone, particularly those writing charters or defining the architecture of a technology;
they can be used as the basis for an appeal or formal objection, if anyone in the community feels that they have not been properly taken into account;
they can be used as a tool in deciding appeals and formal objections.

The second aspect that puzzles me is the idea that somehow the order – first, write down your principles, and then consider what procedural changes might be needed so that they become embodied in work – is wrong, and we should do it the other way round. I can't imagine getting a good reaction if we were to introduce provisions designed to enforce values and principles, which were to be defined later.

I will continue to oppose including text that either people don't understand, or that hasn't got consensus, and I hope the editor will continue to do the same. That's normal and not unreasonable.

Finally, it seems to be way early in the process to be making threats (e.g. "Barring meaningful progress on this issue I don't anticipate to be able to vote in favour of the resulting Statement"), when we're at the stage of trying to understand each other and make improvements based on that understanding. Can we take a deep breath and engage in meaningful discourse, please?

@cwilso Thank you for taking the time to write down your thoughts in detail, I appreciate it. I do believe that on at least some important points, we have been talking past one another. I would like to see if we can't at least pare down the misalignment. (Thanks @dwsinger for adding some further thoughts as I was writing.)

I do not believe that "the current work is a dead end." I believe that its approach needs to change if it is to have an impact in the real world — or at least the level of impact that I would like to see it have. Making it impactful would require, in my opinion, significant edits to the document so as to define principles in a way that can be used in arguments (generally in support of deciding the things that @frivoal listed). I do believe that the approach of listing principles but not defining them clearly enough that people can agree or disagree with them is a dead end yes (and maybe that's what we agree to disagree on). I think that you might actually agree with that too, though, but that we have different expectations of what that looks like (which might need some digging into)?

To make this point concrete: I would want you to be able to use this to go after the Board of Directors for (hypothetically of course) not being transparent enough. After all, it says "Ensuring transparency" in there. But some people will see that and think "a short, sanitised summary of the minutes every quarter is transparency" while others will expect something comparable to GitLab's transparency policy. Absent clarity, both are right to understand it the way that they're familiar with. Both of these people might heartily agree with the principles — but when it comes time for either of them to complain about the BoD, neither will have a principle to back them because "transparency" isn't fleshed out enough and we know that it means different things to different people. Do we really disagree that this is the wrong outcome? Wouldn't you rather have a principled stick to beat the Board up with (in this hypothetical, of course)? Or even better, to not have to beat the Board up in the first place because the principle is clear from the get-go?

Regarding hostility, I hear where you are coming from. I sincerely didn't mean providing a doc as "here's a thing, replace yours with it"; I only intended to provide an example for something which I've been trying to convey in different ways. When I heard you push back that the approach is too solidified to change, I concluded that working through an alternative process would be the only way to resolve this. I would much rather work with you and the AB. I'll admit that I am frustrated at not succeeding to convey the issue, though as I said this may well be on me.

You state that "I will note that it is highly unlikely that the entire Membership will agree with everything in the Vision." That fully matches my expectation: what I want to see in a mission/values/vision document is crisp, opinionated statements that people will agree or disagree with. I would be a lot more comfortable if I disagreed with the Vision. But that's precisely the problem I'm pointing at: I see too little in it that I can agree or disagree with. For the most part, I honestly don't know what might be meant by the text because I know those terms have multiple meanings in our community. Consider just this: I think we would all agree that the EWP Sustainability principle is way too short if we were to have substantial discussions of sustainability, but on its own it is 60% of the size of your entire "Principles and Values" section which supposedly covers way more ground. I don't believe that it's possible to be that brief yet crisp and clear. I certainly agree very strongly with: "I would even go so far as to say if the Vision doesn't garner some dissent, it is probably far too weak and not forward-thinking enough." But I don't think that it is currently setting itself up for success on those terms. Everyone agrees that transparency, fairness, privacy, etc. are good things. The dissent is in the details.

This points to an issue that I can only guess at from the outside and am mentioning in case it can help make progress. In this discussion and several side discussions, it seems that AB members past and present believe that the document as it stands is providing defined principles. But as far as I can tell — and I've read it a few times — it's listing the names of principles but not providing much if any indication as to how to understand them. This would indicate one of three things:

(Unlikely) The AB believes that these terms admit of a common, uncontroversial definition.
The AB is listing terms to scope things out and will define them later. What worries me in this scenario is that I don't see what people are agreeing to: we can both list "fairness" as a goal but we are only agreeing if we agree about what fairness is. (One of several famously contentious terms.)
The AB has developed internal consensus about what the terms mean through a few years of discussion, but that has not been transcribed into the document. Based on some comments (eg. "we always intended this to map to HR") I suspect that this is more the case. If so, please understand that this makes it very hard for anyone on the outside to provide any useful contribution until such a time as what is in the AB's minds is written down.

I think that my use of the term "enforcement" may be leading to more disagreement than there is because it isn't (yet) a term of art in our community. @dwsinger mentions using the principles for chartering decisions, grounding appeals and FOs, or resolving FOs. Presumably that means that charters would have a greater chance of being accepted if they align with principles than if they don't, FOs or resolutions if they call upon the principles, etc. That's… enforcement. "If you abide by $x$ then we will make sure that you are more likely to get the outcome you want than if you don't" is pretty much the definition of enforcement: it means the rule is in actual use and has real-world impact.

But for that to work, you need to have principles that give enough material to argue from — it can't just be the name of the principle, especially if it's a principle which we all know is not inherently consensual. If I have a charter that I think (say) "ensures equity" and you object to it on the grounds that you think it doesn't, all we have to go on is the word "equity". It's not that the doc should answer all the questions (as if it could) but it needs to be opinionated if it's going to support arguing. (Once you start defining things more I don't think that it's possible to dodge the question of the relationship to HR — but we can kick that can down the road for now.)

Two thoughts that might help:

Is there a concrete example of a substantial disagreement in the community over the past few years that the doc as crafted would have helped solved (for instance along the lines that David is thinking about)? I've been involved in a few of those and I can't think of an instance in which I would have benefited from referencing the doc. But I of course haven't been in all of those — maybe the AB is trying to solve a problem that I haven't seen?
I'm not saying that things should be written defensively, but a way to test whether a principle works would be to kick it adversarially: if Bad Faith Individual (substitute your preferred one) were to try to throw a wrench in our work, how would this help me argue the case with minimal energy? Note that in those kinds of adversarial cases, if it looks like you're making the definition up as you go along it's arguably worse than not having a principle in the first place.

Regarding #17 I understand that it hasn't been rejected, but to repeat what it says in https://github.com/WebStandardsFuture/Vision/pull/37 (which I only now notice you didn't copy over to #17 when you moved — maybe that's part of the misalignment?):

Dear AB friends, this PR seeks to do two things: 1) to experiment with a longer format (…) Regarding the longer format, as discussed previously, I feel that the vision's principles need to be defined in somewhat greater detail than they currently are if they are to do some work and not just remain a list of nice thoughts that people working to build Web technology soon forget about. Ideas that are expressed too briefly, no matter how good they may be, are often difficult to put into practice. I believe fleshing things out more is more helpful when it comes to support discussions that happen in the trenches. I am eager to hear what your take on this is.

Without alignment on this, I'm not sure what the rest of the PR would do. If there's agreement on this point, maybe then #17 it maps to some combination of "good for people" and "don't centralize" and can then be removed, or maybe it still needs to exist — that all depends on how those principles are defined.

A few further notes on @dwsinger's points:

The second aspect that puzzles me is the idea that somehow the order – first, write down your principles, and then consider what procedural changes might be needed so that they become embodied in work – is wrong, and we should do it the other way round. I can't imagine getting a good reaction if we were to introduce provisions designed to enforce values and principles, which were to be defined later.

That's not my point. My point is that the principles are only defined to the extent that they are enforced (and vice versa). Let's say we come up with a fictitious principle that our specs must have ipseity. If there is no point at which that principle can be used to impact spec lifecycle (eg. FOs), then people will just ignore it irrespective of the definition. If the Council says that it will rely on it to decide FOs but we don't define it beyond referencing the word "ipseity" then nothing will happen: you can't enforce undefined terms (it's autocracy when you do). If we come up with a lovely detailed definition but the only thing that the Council (or any other enforcement point) uses is that the text should be fuchsia, then people will act as if ipseity=fuchsia.

it seems to be way early in the process to be making threats (e.g. "Barring meaningful progress on this issue I don't anticipate to be able to vote in favour of the resulting Statement")

This isn't a threat. We were discussing closing the issue, at that point one is supposed to know whether the commenters are satisfied with the answer. (We no longer ask people formally, but I believe it remains a good practice.) If this document were progressed now (or in a generally similar state) I wouldn't vote in favour, I would either abstain or object. I'm leaning abstain because if there's no consensus to make it stronger then I would rather move it out the door and switch to another opportunity to build a stronger statement than get stuck in FO processing. Either way, I don't think that it's fair to interpret a statement of dissent as a threat — it's usually helpful to know where people stand!

So, if I were to summarize that it's not that the Vision says anything specifically wrong, it's that it needs to be more usable as a bright-line test and/or more actionable, would that capture it?

I think it would be great if we can improve in that direction. I would welcome specific edits that amplify the values and make them more actionable. I worry that the text that makes things actionable would bulk up the document in ways that an external reader might find unhelpful; but structuring or splitting the document (as we did once before with the History section) is easy, once we have text.

Taking some time to ponder this, I wonder if we're not disagreeing because we have different expectations of what this document is supposed to do. I can try to break this down into three incremental levels:

A communication frame. Basically a document that explains at a very high and very generic level what it is that we're doing here. The use of such a document is for comms, for feel-good quotes, for marketing, for recruitment (of people or members). An example might be The New York Times Mission & Values. One way to think about this level is that it documents our charitable purpose more clearly than it has been before, which is definitely useful.
A recital for the W3C. (We don't have to love the term, it's just descriptive.) In legal documents, a recital typically provides the purpose of the act and some facts about it. It's common in EU laws. A recital isn't normative but it provides background that can be used to discuss and motivate interpretations. (Eg. "We don't have a rule excluding workshops about eating kittens, but the Priority of Constituencies clearly puts cats ahead of all other considerations.") Some constitutions operate at this level.
A foundation for governance of the Web. This does what a recital does but also establishes constitutional rules for legitimacy, rule-setting and rule-changing, enforceable prescriptions, etc.

If the goal is to produce 1, then I think it's pretty close to done. I might file some nitpicks, but I would encourage the AB to ship it ASAP. It's a useful thing to have, but I would like to suggest that there are more worrying fires to tend to.

What worries me is that I keep hearing people say that they expect it to work as 2, and perhaps even as 3. I strongly disagree that that is the case.

Let's take a simple and obvious example that I would expect a document operating at the 2 level to deal with handily.

I am an advertising technologist. I care deeply about keeping the Web free and open, and I'm passionate about standards. I know that a lot of people don't like advertising, but I actually chose this path because I see it as providing essential infrastructure for democracy. I can tell that the whole cookies thing is a mess — you don't need to tell me, I'm the one who has to handle CMP strings and cookie syncing code. My company is honest and we respect user choice, but I wasn't born yesterday and I know that a lot of the rest of the industry isn't quite so honest — though it's always hard to prove. We can do better!

I come to the W3C with a very simple proposal: we should do on the Web what app platforms have done and create the browser equivalent of Apple & Android advertising IDs (so-called "MAIDs" but I don't like that term). I write a simple spec that exposes an efficient, user-controlled unique identifier over an HTTP header and navigator field.

I've long known about the W3C but I've never participated, and I've heard it said that people there can be a bit idiosyncratic. I prepare ahead of time by reading the vision document. I'm glad to see that my proposal is fully aligned with the W3C's values! To wit:

This is for all humanity (it supports a free and independent media) and the good of its users (who don't have to pay).
It's objectively a lot safer than third-party cookies. In fact, it adds traceability to the system in a way that will make it a lot easier to detect dishonest players.
It's interoperable, also more than cookies.
It puts users first: they can always switch the identifier off. This too makes it an improvement over the way in which cookies are supported. It also helps the other constituencies beyond users.
It is great for privacy: people have full control over it, they can reset or opt out, hide it from some sites, etc. I mean, if both Apple and Google do it, it must be privacy-friendly given what they promise their users.
All of this helps keep the system trustworthy, the traceability also makes it easier for researchers to find problems.
It reduces centralisation, you don't get a big player hoarding an identity graph.

With that in mind, I really look forward to working with my new W3C friends!

There is nothing contrived about this example, in fact I know quite a few people who match that description, who might make that proposal, and who would reach those conclusions after reading the current Vision doc. Just citing from a talk I attended last night:

(If you think that kind of statement is made in bad faith or only by bad people, you're wrong.)

There is nothing in the current Vision that can be called upon to reject the above position in a charter or workshop or Council decision that can't also also be used to support it. If you think there is, you're operating on implicit definitions rather than on what the document actually says.

Now, I am confident that I can find copious (but scattered) evidence that such a proposal does not match the values of the W3C or the expectations of the Web community. I know that there's a trove of research out there showing that those motivations don't hold up. But whether this Vision doc exists or not makes no difference to my ability to argue that point.

This is perfectly fine if the goal is 1. But I find it hard to see how a document that can't support, even a little bit, arguing against the example position above would qualify for 2. (And it's missing way more for 3.)

@dwsinger says:

So, if I were to summarize that it's not that the Vision says anything specifically wrong, it's that it needs to be more usable as a bright-line test and/or more actionable, would that capture it?

That entirely depends on what it's for. To work for 1 I would say it's pretty close. To work for 2 it needs a lot more than a bright line — it needs to at a strict minimum define its salient terms (in the way that the EWP does). That's a much longer document.

I like the The New York Times Mission & Values presented by @darobin as the sample for W3C Mission and Values, since which are quite simple and clear, as it really deserves. . We may need another Vision document for Web, as the technology W3C is leading.

I think resolving #13 would help address the scenario @darobin sketches out above. i I proposed some straw-man text in that issue that probably isn't strong enough for Robin's taste, but might help us move us toward drafting text in the "Vision that can be called upon to reject the above position in a charter or workshop or Council decision" . Obviously more detailed and authoritative Process or TAG documents would be needed to unambiguously guide such decisions, but it seems reasonable for the Vision to state the general principles behind privacy in more detail.

Hi Robin

I agree, the document has become overloaded with different purposes, and being clearer about what it is and isn't intended to be will much it much easier to manage. As you say, some of the purposes are in almost direct conflict: an explanation of why we matter, for the outside world, should be written in simple terms and not reference our practices and processes, for example.

I think you have probably enumerated these, but I'll try in different terms to see if we align:

A bright light shining into the future that describes in brief, broad, layman's terms, why we matter and where we're going. I think it can be more than feel-good (and should be), strong enough that it's clear what it's not emphasizing.
A broad, top-level, 'compass' for internal work, as a basis for more detailed documents, work, processes, and yes, possibly directly decisions (e.g. an FO ruling that prefers a decision that aligns with (1)). Certainly having such documents not align with (1) would be a mistake.
A description of how we operate and treat our own constituents. These are also important values, and they are an important part of explaining why people should join (e.g. "you'll be heard"), and why supporting us might also be helpful.
More detailed descriptions of consequences, worked-through processes and principles for specific areas; I think that the TAG documents go some way in this direction, more in the direction of worked-through consequences of values than procedural embodiments. These document, in contrast to (1), should use terms of art, should link to and discuss specific technical questions, and so on.

Personally, I'd be happy if it did (1) and (2) (because they should be the same principles, the same document); went light on (3) (because the audience and use is different), and explicitly expect (4) to be done in work in the appropriate venue (TAG, Process CG, PWECG, and so on). I'd also be fine if (2) were a worked-expansion of (1), to make it more of an actionable recital (your word).

I don't think we'll make much progress on 2-4 without 1, though; with only 'full potential' and no Director to embody values, we're almost a de-magnetized magnetic compass.

If there are top-level compass-bearing types of principles that the Vision doesn't state clearly enough, this is a good time to get to them.

To reply to David's terminology, I agree that we were absolutely starting out as #1, with the understand that this had to grow into/as the basis for other documents that would put this directly into tactical practice (#2). I believe that we were trying to cover a fair bit of what might be considered #3 as well - notably, we were identifying things that we believe are important in how the W3C focuses inwardly - e.g. community consensus-building, inclusion across a diverse global base, focus on interop - but also with the understanding that what we define as important (e.g. privacy, or sustainability) might change who should support/join. Happy to excise that from the mission.

4 sounds like Guides and Process changes, possibly Bylaws. It is certainly not this document's intent.

To use Robin's terminology, this document should absolutely function as #1 (a communication frame) - and yes, all we really had before was the tagline "Leading the Web to Its Full Potential". Additionally, I believe it is a definite goal to fill role of #2 (A recital, though no, I don't love the term - I'd suggest "narrative" or "scope" or "ecosystem"). I would ABSOLUTELY AGREE that it does not yet give anywhere near the level of guidance it needs to in order to be complete in this goal; however, as I've said repeatedly, getting some baseline agreement on the 10000ft level prior to working out every level of detail - because even your contrived example has a lot of deep background. I do not believe this document is the "foundation of governance" for the web (#3); certainly not in this incarnation, and not without being adopted at some point in the future into Bylaws and Process. But we have literally had nearly nothing actually adopted, even the NYT Mission&Values level, in the past; it's all been "shared agreement" that is generally, well, not necessarily shared when you start pulling at the strings.

I will note that this should likely be resolved as a duplicate of #22 .

agreed to close on 10/26/23. If there are narrow topics to continue to discuss, please open new issues

w3c / AB-public

Clarify intended use of the Vision document #53

4 sounds like Guides and Process changes, possibly Bylaws. It is certainly not this document's intent.