01:43:55 RRSAgent has joined #future 01:43:55 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/18-future-irc 01:43:58 rrsagent, make logs public 01:55:43 Zakim has joined #future 01:55:47 present+ 02:02:00 yoshiaki has joined #future 02:34:01 yoshiaki_ has joined #future 02:45:07 yoshiaki has joined #future 02:51:02 yoshiaki_ has joined #future 02:52:03 yoshiaki has joined #future 03:59:58 yoshiaki has joined #future 04:22:10 tantek has joined #future 04:22:56 RRSAgent, make logs public 04:29:55 koalie has joined #future 04:30:01 koalie has changed the topic to: https://w3c.github.io/tpac-breakouts/sessions.html 04:30:26 meeting: Breakout: What is the Future of W3C 04:30:30 yoshiaki has joined #future 04:30:36 OMW 04:30:41 present+ Coralie_Mercier 04:31:07 mchampion has joined #future 04:31:40 yoshiaki has joined #future 04:32:09 phila has joined #future 04:33:03 dsinger has joined #future 04:34:12 yofukami has joined #future 04:35:06 florian has joined #future 04:35:13 ScribeNick: fantasai 04:35:23 jeff has joined #future 04:35:32 present+ jeff 04:35:32 cwilso has joined #future 04:35:39 jay has joined #future 04:36:00 present+ 04:36:04 present+ 04:36:06 Franck has joined #future 04:36:18 mchampion, please join https://mit.webex.com/join/koalie 04:36:28 or US Toll Number +1-617-324-0000 04:36:38 meeting number: 649 613 453 04:36:38 present+ 04:36:46 fantasai has changed the topic to: Future of W3C 04:36:50 Topic: Future of W3C 04:37:15 amy has joined #future 04:37:22 present+ 04:37:32 Rachel has joined #future 04:38:39 present+ dsinger 04:39:01 present+ 04:39:02 present+ 04:39:03 present+ 04:39:09 Judy has joined #future 04:39:10 present+ 04:39:13 Travis has joined #future 04:39:13 Kangchan has joined #future 04:39:13 +tanya 04:39:14 heejin_ has joined #future 04:39:14 present+ 04:39:19 mnot has joined #future 04:39:23 present+ 04:39:26 present+ amy 04:39:44 minobu has joined #future 04:39:45 https://w3c.github.io/tpac-breakouts/sessions.html#future 04:39:46 https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas#What_is_the_Future_of_W3C 04:39:46 Avneesh has joined #future 04:40:00 coralie, are you sure that's the webex? 04:40:09 Mike said he's the only one on 04:40:12 tantek: As some of you heard during AC meeting, there's a pretty big transition of W3C converting ot a legal entity 04:40:18 Ralph has joined #future 04:40:25 present+ 04:40:29 tantek: as part of that a bunch of us are asking the questions of what really should be our goals with W3C, explicitly, especially towards the future 04:40:36 tantek: so that we can provide that as input to how the legal entity is shaped 04:40:39 JoeAndrieu has joined #future 04:40:45 MichaelC has joined #future 04:40:45 tantek: because there's lots of details, ways that transition will happen 04:40:48 present+ 04:40:52 tantek: one way would be to trust W3C Team to manage everything 04:40:54 heejin_ has joined #future 04:41:01 tantek: don't think that everyone wants to delegate complete authority to Team 04:41:03 present+ 04:41:03 present+ Joe_Andrieu 04:41:16 tantek: W3C as a culture and org and community has always been multi-stakeholder, and trying to get consensus bfore moving forward 04:41:24 tantek: with something so large, seemd appropriated to ask these questions 04:41:34 tantek: mchampion and I brainstormed some questions to ask 04:41:49 tantek: wanted this discussion to happen a bit more publicly, because a lot of discussion has been with smaller groups so far, and not necessarily in public venuses 04:41:53 mmerrell has joined #future 04:42:01 tantek: whereas W3C has very broad impact on the world,Web, technology 04:42:01 but don't worry, scribing is excellent 04:42:04 tantek: three areas to reframe are 04:42:07 tantek: what should mission be? 04:42:11 tantek: how shoudl leadership work? 04:42:26 tantek: how do we figure out what's the appropriate staffing model? 04:42:33 tantek: lots of variable,s lots of possible paths 04:42:41 tantek: we all share a desire for W3C to succeed and to thrive 04:42:48 q? 04:42:49 q? 04:42:57 q+ to Note we’ve already asked (a) is a consortium the right structure, or should we incorporate. (b) 04:43:20 q? 04:43:25 ack dsinger 04:43:25 dsinger, you wanted to Note we’ve already asked (a) is a consortium the right structure, or should we incorporate. (b) 04:43:33 dsinger: Would note, we asked 2 big questions already 04:43:44 dsinger: 1) is Consortium structure right structure, or be a separate ientity 04:43:51 Kris has joined #future 04:43:53 dsinger: 2) shoudl a Director-led structure better, or director-free 04:43:57 dsinger: but also some questions we haven't asked 04:44:07 dsinger: One is, we have a dues-heavy, staff-heavy consortium 04:44:11 dsinger: IETF is almost exact opposite 04:44:16 dsinger: is this the right model for next 25yrs? 04:44:24 dsinger: something to consider 04:44:28 q+ travis 04:44:28 q? 04:44:32 ack trav 04:44:35 dsinger: sensitive topic because involves real people 04:44:48 Travis: beign dues-collecting organization has benefitted W3C, lots of great services and good infrastructure 04:44:55 RRSagent, make minutes 04:44:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/18-future-minutes.html koalie 04:44:55 Travis: this meeting, TPAC, a lot of dues help pay for this 04:45:02 Travis: don't have a lot of clarity on where dues go 04:45:12 vivien has joined #future 04:45:13 I note the Director issue is one being discussed in the AB 04:45:19 Travis: but wrt where to align on that spectrum, not going completely WHATWG no-dues would not be right answer 04:45:19 RRSagent, make minutes 04:45:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/18-future-minutes.html koalie 04:45:21 present+ 04:45:24 q+ to comment on member model v individual model 04:45:24 q+ 04:45:26 q+ 04:45:47 Travis: at AC meeting I heard a lot fo steps taken towards transitioning to legal entity 04:45:59 Travis: wonder how much is locked away and unchangeable vs what can we impact and change today , unlcear 04:46:05 q+ 04:46:05 q? 04:46:24 q+ 04:46:24 florian: Until it happens, hasn't happened yet, so everything can change 04:46:35 present+ Tanya_Mandal 04:46:35 present+ 04:46:36 florian: but already some level of consensus, difficult to re-negotiate 04:46:43 florian: if something critically wrong, we shoudl change the plan 04:46:46 present+ Travis_Leithead 04:46:50 duerst has joined #future 04:46:56 florian: if something workable but could be better, and has already been validated by host universities, harder to change 04:47:04 florian: hasn't happened yet, so nothing stuck, but some amount of inertia 04:47:10 present+ Mike_Champion 04:47:12 fantasai: most things are open atm 04:47:13 q? 04:47:15 present+ Helen_Garneau 04:47:21 Judy-zhu has joined #future 04:47:25 ack jeff 04:47:25 jeff, you wanted to comment on member model v individual model 04:47:29 florian: 4 universities have given assent to a certain vision, can change anything, but some things more reluctance 04:47:31 q? 04:47:33 q? 04:47:48 jeff: dsinger raised question about dues-heavy, staff-heavy vs IETF 04:47:55 jeff: want to describe my view, 2 questions underneath that 04:48:03 jeff: IETF is not a Member organization, it's an individuals organization 04:48:18 jeff: W3C is a Member organization, so lots different, e.g. patent policy structured around concept of Member 04:48:25 jeff: in contrast with IETF, it's an issue 04:48:26 present+ Vivien_Lacourba, Martin_Duerst, Michael_Cooper, Judy_Brewer, Rachel_Comerford, Mark_Nottingham, Judy_Zhu 04:48:31 jeff: wrt dues-heavy, staffing 04:48:43 jeff: work that W3C Staff does, is work that happens IETF as well, someone does it 04:48:51 q? 04:48:52 jeff: so I don't think companies aren't paying less for IETF 04:48:58 jeff: just paying differently 04:49:00 Kris has joined #future 04:49:06 jeff: IETF, companies consign their own employees to do that work 04:49:12 jeff: here W3C staff does it through dues 04:49:21 jeff: wrt locking things down, agree with Florian 04:49:25 jeff: nothing irreversible has been done 04:49:33 jeff: but, big loss of change is time 04:49:45 jeff: W3M task force that tried to envision legal entity 04:49:45 present+ Ralph_Swick, Franck_Olivier, Yves_Lafon, Eric_Siow, Amy_van_der_Hiel, Karl_Dubost 04:49:49 jeff: first TF was in 2015 04:49:54 jeff: took 4 yrs to get this far 04:49:55 present+ Angel_Li 04:50:04 jeff: if we decided to unwind every single decision and start over 04:50:08 q? 04:50:12 jeff: wouldn't add 4 yrs maybe, but would elongate the process 04:50:17 ack phila 04:50:17 jeff: so, make changes if important 04:50:31 phila: Move to legal entity could be helpful 04:50:34 q? 04:50:35 present+ Avneesh_Singh 04:50:40 phila: other I have worked for have other sources of income besides Membership 04:50:45 phila: something W3C needs to explore 04:50:46 present+ Mike_Champion(remote) 04:50:53 phila: in one case, we have a product license that ppl pay for 04:51:06 phila: ODC makes money from its test metric program 04:51:18 phila: W3C .... for free 04:51:18 karl has joined #future 04:51:25 ack dbaron 04:51:35 phila: but some other source of income would be necessary to support what authors passionate about 04:51:45 dbaron: One aspect of beign a dues-paying organization, that has been difficult for awhile 04:51:53 dbaron: Membership model has influence on who is in the conversation 04:51:55 s/beign/being 04:52:07 dbaron: there's natural involvement from browsers in large companies 04:52:11 dbaron: but hard for small companies 04:52:12 q? 04:52:18 dbaron: IE model difficult to work with , admin hassle 04:52:22 dbaron: this is a result of the dues model 04:52:40 dbaron: I think having a Patent Policy that implies commitments from orgs is separate, should continue 04:52:48 dbaron: WHATWG has that, but doesn't have organizational membership model 04:52:51 dbaron: entirely detachable 04:52:52 q? 04:52:55 ack cwilso 04:53:09 cwilso: Wanted to respond to dbaron's point 04:53:24 present+ Lawrence_Cheng 04:53:25 cwilso: model at WHATWG, does require you to have organizational commitment if you are in an organization 04:53:39 cwilso: by design, don't want an individual from org to drive things without .. 04:53:50 dbaron: organizational IP commitment, not organizational commitment of money 04:54:00 cwilso: challenge for me, tantekt's original essay of goals of conversation very apt 04:54:09 cwilso: things most important to me are figuring out how to enable us to have 04:54:17 cwilso: W3C's traditional mission statemtn is [..] 04:54:20 cwilso: but slightly off 04:54:27 cwilso: W3C's role is shepherding that goal 04:54:34 cwilso: not guiding straight to solutiont 04:54:41 cwilso: solutions come from large community of people 04:54:46 cwilso: not one org or one individual 04:54:48 cwilso: but role is challening 04:54:59 cwilso: mechanics of consensus-building is very hard to do well, and W3C has provided value on 04:55:02 "coach driving the web to its full potential" ? 04:55:04 q? 04:55:05 ack mnot 04:55:08 cwilso: would like to see that role expand 04:55:13 q+ 04:55:30 present+ 04:55:32 mnot: Interesting discussion fo rme, because I spent a fair amount time at W3C, then went away, then came back recently as prospective member 04:55:33 q+ 04:55:38 q+ to comment on mission statement - and "who is W3C?" 04:55:42 mnot: One thing my company interested in is what kind of org will be? 04:55:53 mnot: When I look at the issues in W3C, I've always see 3 04:56:03 mnot: one is aligned to director-free work that is ongoing, and happy with engagement there 04:56:09 mnot: a lto of work, but getting attention 04:56:16 mnot: host model is pretty broken, and that's being fixed 04:56:24 mnot: last leg is Membership model 04:56:30 mnot: that creates a lot of interesting incetives for Members 04:56:37 mnot: incentives not completely aligned with best for future of Web 04:56:38 eric has joined #future 04:56:43 mnot: .... 04:56:59 q? 04:56:59 mnot: You're right to bring it up, it's a sensitive topic, but important to consider what incentives 04:57:13 amy: Can you explain more what you mean by disconnect? 04:57:36 mnot: I've spent 20yrs watching W3C and IETF 04:57:43 mnot: see differences in style of how work in each 04:57:49 mnot: differences subtle, but important 04:58:10 mnot: In the IETF, there's no Team, no Staff, only contractors for specified functions 04:58:18 mnot: so admin work contracted out to secretary 04:58:24 mnot: leadership for publishing standards 04:58:35 mnot: ffor doing work, by body of people elected within the community 04:58:39 mnot: much more community oriented approach 04:58:44 s/elected/selected/ 04:58:50 mnot: for awhile I thought that the best outcome would be to take IETF model and drop into W3C 04:58:53 mnot: don'tthink that's the case any more 04:58:58 mnot: think it would be destructive 04:59:05 mnot: but worth looking at that, and consider what happens 04:59:13 mnot: when controversial thing, what happens? 04:59:21 mnot: decide whether to take on new work or not? vs take on new membership 04:59:27 mnot: very different than what happens at W3C 04:59:38 mnot: not to cast aspersions on Team, lot of love and trust from W3C community 04:59:40 Q+ 04:59:40 mnot: but worth exploring 04:59:49 mnot: companies spend about same in IETF than W3C, jeff mentioned 04:59:55 mnot: as rough yardstick, pretty true 05:00:00 mnot: my company sends 10 ppl to IETF 05:00:03 mnot: that's a lot of money 05:00:05 mnot: set out in a different way 05:00:06 angel has joined #future 05:00:10 mnot: how that money gets used is very different 05:00:17 mnot: serves contracts, creates stellar network? 05:00:27 s/network?/[wifi] network 05:00:28 mnot: budget of IETF overall is less than W3C, although work done is much larger 05:00:33 mnot: but not matter of just starting anew 05:00:44 mnot: but having good discussion about role of Team and execute on functions 05:00:49 mnot: and whether Membership is right model 05:00:56 mnot: if have financial model that doesn't require $10 million 05:01:03 mnot: that doesn't require paying money to get a vote 05:01:05 mnot: changes things 05:01:13 q? 05:01:17 amy: This notion of Membership model becoming questionable 05:01:22 amy: One value is one vote per organization 05:01:26 malevels playing field 05:01:37 amy: not question of most money, most reps in group 05:01:39 q? to talk about one member one vote 05:01:42 mnot: well worth considering 05:01:44 mnot: tension 05:01:50 mnot: real world, browsers have considerable amount of power 05:01:52 q+ phila to talk about one member one vite 05:01:54 mnot: one view of how it works 05:01:58 s/vote/vite 05:02:03 mnot: ppl come along and ask to change products 05:02:05 mnot: willing to do that 05:02:05 s/vite/vote 05:02:08 mnot: ... 05:02:19 q? 05:02:21 mnot: have to be concerned about organization being controlled by one or two companies 05:02:23 [Angel leaves] 05:02:25 mnot: WHATWG ... 05:02:30 q- 05:02:31 ack florian 05:02:32 mnot: I'm never taking new work to WHATWG, because I don't have a say there 05:02:36 mnot: not willing to be a serf 05:02:39 azaroth has joined #future 05:02:40 MichaelC has joined #future 05:02:46 florian: If I understood correctly, what to agree with cwilso 05:02:54 s/what/want 05:02:58 florian: for awhile, we've been following same model 05:03:06 florian: large changes triggering us to consider future, strategy 05:03:07 azaroth has left #future 05:03:19 florian: I don't think our strategy should be picking technical direction of Web 05:03:25 florian: shoudl emerge from consensus of the organization 05:03:34 florian: but tooling support, human support, what helps us best 05:03:40 cwilso: tactics 05:03:44 florian: should we have staff or not is not tactices 05:03:50 florian: can't change this every 3 months 05:03:53 agrees with cwilso, how you spend the money is tactics 05:03:58 florian: it's a strategic change to W3C 05:04:13 florian: that type of consideration should dominate our strategy for being the best forum 05:04:17 q+ 05:04:22 florian: rather than best strategy for doing tthe best leading 05:04:23 florian: ... 05:04:29 q+ to say the there's organizational strategy for the W3c, but that's not the same as a strategy for the evolution and expansion of the web platform. 05:04:34 florian: lots of discussion of "strategy" about which technology to follow, support, 05:04:38 florian: but that's not our staretgy, 05:04:44 florian: our strategy should be about being a venue 05:04:49 florian: we can't be entirely tech agnostic 05:04:54 q? 05:04:59 florian: but don't think as a consortium, picking tech is not the dominant strategy 05:05:02 ack tantek 05:05:19 tantek: I think you're right, should be more about the venue than about assumption of leadership 05:05:19 mnot_ has joined #future 05:05:25 q+ 05:05:30 tantek: going back to three areas of discussion we set up 05:05:34 tantek: 1st two, mission and leadership 05:05:48 tantek: "lead web to its full potential" may have made sense 20 yrs ago, esp with timbl more actively invovled 05:05:53 tantek: but no longer true, no longer actively involved 05:05:57 ack Travis 05:06:00 tantek: leadership of Web doesn't happen at any one organization 05:06:06 tantek: seems inaccurate at best, arrogant at worst 05:06:10 Tantec is making my point. 05:06:14 tantek: so I put that out there as a challenge, to come up with a better mission statement for W3C 05:06:24 tantek: something more accurate as of 2019, as of W3C without Tim 05:06:27 q? 05:06:31 ack jeff 05:06:31 jeff, you wanted to comment on mission statement - and "who is W3C?" 05:06:33 s/Tantec/Tantek 05:06:45 q? 05:06:48 q+ 05:06:48 jeff: W3C mission 05:06:49 I note W3C is many organizations. it is a venue for many organizations to lead. 05:07:01 jeff: My interpretation is W3C in that sentence has always been the W3C community 05:07:04 jeff: not the W3C Team 05:07:11 jeff: and I hope that that interpretation is shared by others 05:07:25 q+ 05:07:26 q? 05:07:28 ack eric 05:07:29 jeff: given that, think it's fine for W3C community to aspire to lead the Web to its full potential 05:07:42 eric: First want to applaud leaders decided to organize this meeting 05:07:45 s/interpretation/interpretation of the W3C's mission statement of "lead the Web to its full potential" 05:07:57 eric: change is always hard, always threatening to those have been doing same thing over and over for many years 05:08:03 eric: ever sicne I got onto AB, had members askin questions 05:08:11 eric: why are spinning out and becoming a new LE 05:08:14 eric: do we really need to? 05:08:19 eric: from certain perspective, it makes sense 05:08:28 eric: because of the complex structure of 4-hosts 05:08:33 q? 05:08:35 [LE - Legal Entity] 05:08:37 eric: no clear line of accountabilitiy, employees working for 4 institutions 05:08:44 eric: from that perspective, makes sense to form LE 05:08:48 eric: but I really agree with what Tantek says 05:09:00 eric: as I was working with W3M to put together story to approch potential donors 05:09:06 eric: one feedback from Coralie and others mentioned 05:09:14 eric: the Web is no longer new thing, has been around for awhile 05:09:21 eric: want donors to fund you 05:09:27 eric: why fund you when MIT asking you to leave? 05:09:30 eric: has to be a story 05:09:31 q+ 05:09:35 eric: we need to figure out where this thing is going 05:09:39 eric: difficult question 05:09:42 Yves has joined #future 05:09:47 q+ to possibly ask about MIT (dis)connection given past few weeks 05:09:51 eric: rather than figure out dues-paying heavy organization, or IETF-style 05:09:54 eric: that's next level down 05:09:54 q+ to pitch the "web stories" breakout in the next slot 05:10:01 eric: key question is what do we want this thing to be? 05:10:08 eric: on AB, sense this tension between AB members and the Team 05:10:17 eric: this is not an aspersion on Team working very hard 05:10:27 eric: this involves real humans, need to be sensitive 05:10:35 eric: but ppl working in W3C long time, this is really scary, don't know where it's going 05:10:39 eric: but we need to approach this head-on 05:10:43 eric: take all the ? and throw it away 05:10:44 q+ 05:10:46 s/?/past/ 05:10:48 q+ to tak about succession 05:10:56 eric: W3C is made up of members, so we need to take charge and say, Tim is not coming back 05:11:03 eric: moving forward, what do we want this thing to be? 05:11:08 q- 05:11:11 q? 05:11:13 ack cwilso 05:11:14 eric: let's figure that out first before figuring out struture of organization 05:11:14 cwilso, you wanted to say the there's organizational strategy for the W3c, but that's not the same as a strategy for the evolution and expansion of the web platform. 05:11:24 cwilso: Harkens back to what Florian said earlier 05:11:28 cwilso: 2 things to separate 05:11:35 cwilso: one is organizational strategy for how W3C operates 05:11:44 cwilso: and other strategy of how Web expands and evovles 05:11:49 cwilso: these always separate concerns 05:11:53 cwilso: but moreso 05:12:02 q? 05:12:04