15:01:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vision
15:01:07 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-vision-irc
15:01:07 <tpac-breakout-bot> RRSAgent, do not leave
15:01:08 <tpac-breakout-bot> RRSAgent, make logs member
15:01:09 <tpac-breakout-bot> Meeting: W3C Vision — Getting To Statement
15:01:09 <tpac-breakout-bot> Chair: Tantek Çelik, Chris Wilson
15:01:09 <tpac-breakout-bot> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/tpac2024-breakouts/issues/84
15:01:09 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #vision
15:01:10 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, clear agenda
15:01:10 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:01:10 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, agenda+ Pick a scribe
15:01:11 <Zakim> agendum 1 added
15:01:11 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, agenda+ Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy
15:01:11 <Zakim> agendum 2 added
15:01:11 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, agenda+ Goal of this session
15:01:12 <Zakim> agendum 3 added
15:01:12 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, agenda+ Discussion
15:01:12 <Zakim> agendum 4 added
15:01:13 <tpac-breakout-bot> Zakim, agenda+ Next steps / where discussion continues
15:01:15 <Zakim> agendum 5 added
15:01:16 <tpac-breakout-bot> tpac-breakout-bot has left #vision
15:10:34 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #vision
15:16:41 <naomi> naomi has joined #vision
15:19:22 <naomi> naomi has joined #vision
15:24:26 <amy> amy has joined #vision
15:34:41 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #vision
16:12:23 <AramZS> AramZS has joined #vision
16:36:21 <AramZS> AramZS has joined #vision
16:39:40 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #vision
16:40:43 <dsinger_> dsinger_ has joined #vision
16:55:26 <naomi> naomi has joined #vision
16:58:10 <AramZS> AramZS has joined #vision
17:04:30 <tantek> tantek has joined #vision
17:04:55 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #vision
17:51:54 <naomi> naomi has joined #vision
17:55:19 <naomi_> naomi_ has joined #vision
18:05:53 <naomi> naomi has joined #vision
18:11:53 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #vision
18:22:33 <tantek> tantek has joined #vision
19:07:38 <naomi> naomi has joined #vision
20:14:01 <naomi> naomi has joined #vision
20:18:56 <tantek> tantek has joined #vision
20:19:15 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #vision
20:19:42 <AramZS> AramZS has joined #vision
21:25:21 <naomi> naomi has joined #vision
21:37:03 <amy> amy has joined #vision
21:37:13 <AramZS> AramZS has joined #vision
21:42:42 <jgraham> jgraham has joined #vision
21:43:49 <gendler> gendler has joined #vision
21:45:52 <tantek> tantek has joined #vision
21:46:27 <tantek> present+
21:46:32 <koalie> koalie has joined #vision
21:46:38 <tantek> present+ koalie
21:46:38 <koalie> present+ Coralie
21:46:57 <cwilso> present+
21:47:00 <koalie> present- Coralie
21:47:03 <tantek> present+ EricSiow
21:47:12 <tantek> present+ BenSavage
21:47:16 <tantek> present+ jgraham
21:47:20 <koalie> present+ KarenMyers
21:47:21 <gendler> present+
21:47:35 <koalie> present+ fantasai
21:48:05 <fbedora> fbedora has joined #vision
21:48:16 <Jem> Jem has joined #vision
21:48:25 <Jem> present+ JaeunJemmaKu
21:48:58 <koalie> present+ AmyvanderHiel
21:49:29 <fbedora> present+
21:50:05 <koalie> present+ DavidSinger
21:50:07 <amy> amy has joined #vision
21:50:42 <koalie> present+ KevinWhite
21:50:57 <koalie> present+ TristanNitot
21:51:02 <kevin> kevin has joined #vision
21:51:06 <koalie> present+ PLH
21:51:09 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #vision
21:51:20 <tantek> Agenda+ process Vision statement-blockers: https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues?q=is%3Aissue+label%3A%22needed+for+Statement%22+is%3Aopen
21:51:25 <tantek> Agenda?
21:52:21 <koalie> present+ GlendaSims
21:53:29 <tnitot> tnitot has joined #vision
21:53:37 <naomi> naomi has joined #vision
21:53:37 <Jem> present+ jaeunjemmaku
21:53:43 <koalie> [Tantek introduces the session]
21:53:44 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #vision
21:53:44 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #vision
21:53:51 <naomi> naomi has joined #vision
21:53:54 <koalie> Zakim, drop i tem 1
21:53:54 <Zakim> I don't understand 'drop i tem 1', koalie
21:54:00 <koalie> Zakim, next item
21:54:00 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Pick a scribe -- taken up [from tpac-breakout-bot]
21:54:06 <gregwhitworth> gregwhitworth has joined #vision
21:54:09 <koalie> Zakim, drop item 1
21:54:09 <Zakim> agendum 1, Pick a scribe, dropped
21:54:17 <koalie> Zakim, next item
21:54:17 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy -- taken up [from tpac-breakout-bot]
21:54:35 <koalie> Zakim, next item
21:54:35 <Zakim> agendum 2 was just opened, koalie
21:54:40 <koalie> Zakim, close item 2
21:54:41 <Zakim> agendum 2, Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy, closed
21:54:41 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:54:41 <Zakim> 3. Goal of this session [from tpac-breakout-bot]
21:54:43 <koalie> Zakim, next item
21:54:43 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Goal of this session -- taken up [from tpac-breakout-bot]
21:55:11 <koalie> Tantek: scope of session is to go over blocking issues
21:55:11 <Jem> can we have the link to the doc?
21:55:19 <koalie> ... aiming to take the document to statement, as a next step
21:55:22 <amy> https://www.w3.org/TR/2024/NOTE-w3c-vision-20240403/ -> Vision for W3C
21:55:23 <tantek> q?
21:55:24 <cwilso> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22needed+for+Statement%22 is open issues.
21:55:41 <koalie> Zakim, next item
21:55:41 <Zakim> agendum 3 was just opened, koalie
21:55:46 <koalie> Zakim, close item 3
21:55:47 <Zakim> agendum 3, Goal of this session, closed
21:55:47 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:55:47 <Zakim> 4. Discussion [from tpac-breakout-bot]
21:55:48 <koalie> Zakim, next item
21:55:48 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Discussion -- taken up [from tpac-breakout-bot]
21:56:05 <tantek> q?
21:56:15 <koalie> tantek: we should get this in front of the advisory committee representatives for review
21:56:18 <amy> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22needed+for+Statement%22 -> Issues for processing
21:56:23 <koalie> ... let's go through the issues
21:56:34 <koalie> ... a few issues and one pull request
21:56:46 <koalie> ... if it's not a blocker, then it's out of scope
21:56:49 <koalie> ====
21:56:58 <koalie> tantek: issue 126
21:57:00 <tantek> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/126
21:57:13 <amy> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/126 -> "smoke-testing the values... #126"
21:57:29 <koalie> Tantek: this is about how the document "holds up"
21:57:32 <koalie> ... we've done that
21:57:43 <koalie> ... heard comments from team and others that the note was used in decision making
21:57:50 <koalie> ... heard so far only positive feedback
21:58:06 <koalie> ... and that it's been incrementally helpful over not having a vision
21:58:20 <koalie> ... is there any feedback, are there any holds?
21:58:25 <koalie> [none]
21:58:34 <koalie> Tantek: I propose we close as complete with experience to date
21:58:40 <amy> no holds, my experience is positive. support closing this issue as complete
21:58:48 <naomi> naomi has joined #vision
21:58:53 <koalie> ... and then understanding that if there is now information or new experience, a new issue can be open
21:59:03 <tantek> q?
21:59:46 <cwilso> PROPOSAL: We should close this issue (#126) as we have smoke-tested the Vision values and believe they are solid enough to provide guidance.  We may open new issues in the future.
21:59:49 <koalie> [people prepare to +1/-1/0 while the proposal is being typed up]
21:59:51 <tantek> +1
21:59:51 <fantasai> +1
21:59:55 <amy> +1
21:59:56 <gendler> +1
21:59:56 <dsinger> +1
21:59:57 <koalie> +1
21:59:58 <cwilso> +1
22:00:07 <plh> plh has joined #vision
22:00:10 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #vision
22:00:28 <koalie> dsinger: that doesn't mean smoke testing should stop, right?
22:00:32 <koalie> Tantek: correct
22:00:41 <gendler> q+
22:00:58 <tantek> q?
22:01:00 <Erik> Erik has joined #vision
22:01:27 <koalie> ack g
22:01:47 <koalie> gendler: I don't think anyone's intention is to not change the vision ever
22:01:51 <koalie> ... we want to build on
22:01:56 <koalie> ... if we missed something
22:02:02 <koalie> ... the document can change
22:02:08 <btsavage> btsavage has joined #vision
22:02:08 <koalie> ... we are in a good place now
22:02:13 <koalie> ... the AC deserves to vote on it
22:02:14 <tantek> q?
22:02:15 <dsinger> q+
22:02:17 <tantek> +1 gendler
22:02:23 <koalie> dsinger: +1 to that
22:02:31 <koalie> ... you need to have a living document
22:02:42 <koalie> EricSiow: +1
22:02:48 <koalie> ... you have to adjust to your conditions
22:02:50 <cwilso> RESOLVED: We should close this issue (#126) as we have smoke-tested the Vision values and believe they are solid enough to provide guidance.  We may open new issues in the future.
22:02:55 <koalie> ====
22:03:18 <koalie> -> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/113  "supports truth over falsehood" may read like censorship #113
22:03:39 <koalie> tantek: we iterated a bit since that issue was filed
22:04:01 <koalie> ... statement blocker given apparent lack of consensus at the time, almost a year ago
22:04:22 <koalie> ... I believe the current vision has a good faith effort at resolving this
22:04:25 <amy> "facts over falsehoods"
22:04:27 <koalie> ... we dropped "truth"
22:04:35 <koalie> ... now usind "facts over falshoods"
22:04:38 <tantek> q?
22:04:39 <cwilso> q+
22:04:42 <koalie> s/sind/sing/
22:04:43 <dsinger> q-
22:04:46 <tantek> ack cwilso
22:05:01 <koalie> cwilso: the best thing to do with this issue is that it's not needed for statement
22:05:01 <gregwhitworth> q+
22:05:11 <koalie> ... we should keep it open
22:05:18 <koalie> ... and continue to think about alignment with other principle documents
22:05:24 <tantek> q+
22:05:26 <koalie> ... aiming for better alignment
22:05:31 <tantek> ack gregwhitworth
22:05:36 <tantek> present+ gregwhitworth
22:05:38 <koalie> ... I don't think further changes are needed
22:05:42 <koalie> ack gr
22:05:50 <koalie> gregwhitworth: what does statements mean?
22:06:07 <koalie> cwilso: groups who can not issue Recommendations can issue statements
22:06:11 <koalie> ... that have AC endorsement
22:06:26 <koalie> ... we did this for privacy and ethical principles from the TAG
22:06:31 <tantek> q?
22:06:36 <koalie> present+ gregwhitworth
22:06:58 <amy> https://www.w3.org/standards/types/#x1-summary -> "Types of documents W3C publishes"
22:07:10 <cwilso> ack tantek
22:07:10 <tantek> q+
22:07:10 <cwilso> ack tantek
22:07:14 <koalie> gregwhitworth: I agree with what cwilso said then
22:07:26 <amy> [[2.5.3 Statements
22:07:27 <amy> A W3C Statement is a document produced by a W3C Working Group, a W3C Interest Group, the Advisory Board (AB), or the W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG). A W3C Statement is a W3C Technical Report.
22:07:27 <amy> A Statement is to provide a stable reference for a document that is not intended to be a formal standard. These statements have been formally reviewed and are endorsed W3C.
22:07:27 <amy> These statements MAY be cited as W3C statements.
22:07:29 <amy> W3C Statements should not contain implementable technology.
22:07:29 <amy> There are no patent protection covering the implementations of the W3C Statement.
22:07:31 <amy> ]]
22:07:43 <koalie> tantek: I don't like issues that never close
22:07:50 <koalie> ... not good issue tracking practice
22:07:57 <koalie> ... I'd propose we close this as completed
22:08:16 <koalie> ... while indicating while closing it that there is worth raising other issues
22:09:12 <koalie> gregwhitworth: comments can be turned into separate issues
22:09:24 <koalie> ... maybe you take the action
22:09:29 <Jem> +1 gregwhitworth
22:09:42 <EricS7> EricS7 has joined #vision
22:09:45 <amy> +1 to gregwhitworth
22:10:06 <koalie> [people prepare to vote +1/-1/0]
22:10:10 <tantek> PROPOSED: Close issue 113 as resolved as originally filed, and open a new non-statement-blocker issue forking from relevant comment in summary: "criticism is that we need to do an adversarial reading of the document, to anticipate how it will be understood and misunderstood by people outside the consortium"
22:10:20 <Jem> +1
22:10:21 <cwilso> +1
22:10:23 <koalie> +1
22:10:24 <tantek> +1
22:10:38 <Erik> Erik has joined #vision
22:10:39 <gendler> +1
22:11:19 <amy> +1
22:11:38 <Erik> +1
22:11:50 <tantek> RESOLVED: Close issue 113 as resolved as originally filed, and open a new non-statement-blocker issue forking from relevant comment in summary: "criticism is that we need to do an adversarial reading of the document, to anticipate how it will be understood and misunderstood by people outside the consortium"
22:11:59 <koalie> ====
22:12:01 <amy> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/64 -> Thank contributors by name #64
22:12:24 <gregwhitworth> q+
22:12:32 <koalie> tantek: I think we've done some of that
22:12:41 <koalie> ack gregwhitworth
22:12:55 <koalie> gregwhitworth: I don't think it should be a hold-up
22:13:01 <koalie> ... but I agree it's a good idea
22:13:17 <koalie> ack f
22:13:27 <gendler> q+
22:13:31 <koalie> fantasai: make sure the acks are non-negligent is a good idea
22:13:32 <amy> https://www.w3.org/TR/2024/NOTE-w3c-vision-20240403/#acknowledgements -> Acknowledgements
22:13:39 <cwilso> q+
22:13:46 <koalie> ... at least make sure the major contributors are listed for publication
22:13:48 <koalie> ack g
22:13:48 <tantek> ack gendler
22:14:15 <tantek> q?
22:14:21 <tantek> ack cwilso
22:14:22 <koalie> gendler: I would say the acks is very representative of who worked on it
22:14:32 <dsinger> q+
22:14:44 <koalie> cwilso: Max you've been on the TF a long time, and your name isn't on the list. is that a mistake?
22:14:53 <koalie> gendler: No
22:15:07 <koalie> ... having thoughts and paying attention doesn't warrant putting my name
22:15:12 <amy> q+ to wonder if including "the Vision TF" might suffice if there are concerns
22:15:16 <cwilso> ack ds
22:15:16 <fantasai> +1, I think that's the right level of criteria to apply
22:15:31 <koalie> dsinger: s/including/notably/ is my suggestion
22:15:37 <cwilso> ack amy
22:15:38 <Zakim> amy, you wanted to wonder if including "the Vision TF" might suffice if there are concerns
22:15:53 <koalie> amy: if there are concerns, I support David's idea
22:15:59 <song> song has joined #vision
22:16:01 <dsinger> suggest s/notably/including/
22:16:07 <koalie> ... otherwise I suggest "the vision task force"
22:16:08 <Jem> +1 to dsinger
22:16:14 <koalie> ... I don't think it's a blocker
22:16:27 <cwilso> ack fantasai
22:16:27 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to say that with max's verification I'm supportive of closing
22:16:30 <koalie> tantek: I can file a PR to include "vision task force"
22:16:31 <koalie> ack f
22:16:43 <koalie> fantasai: with Amy's proposal and max's verification
22:16:49 <koalie> ... I feel confident closing this issue
22:17:08 <amy> +1 to closing
22:17:10 <Erik> +1
22:17:39 <tantek> PROPOSED: Close 64 with an editorial change to include "and the Vision Task Force" (PR expected soon)
22:17:51 <tantek> +1
22:17:55 <cwilso> +1
22:17:55 <gendler> +1
22:17:56 <Erik> present+
22:18:00 <song> +1
22:18:01 <dsinger> present+
22:18:04 <Erik> Erik Taubeneck
22:18:11 <koalie> +1
22:18:32 <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/175
22:18:35 <fantasai> +1
22:18:42 <tantek> RESOLVED: Close 64 with an editorial change to include "and the Vision Task Force" (PR expected soon)
22:18:45 <koalie> ====
22:18:47 <amy> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/13 -> Be more explicit about how to improve web's "integrity" #13
22:19:13 <koalie> tantek: This has been a high-level long-standing challenges
22:19:24 <koalie> ... to make a difference
22:19:39 <koalie> ... one of our strongest advocates has been David Singer who's here
22:19:50 <koalie> ... and requested that we advocate for a bold vision
22:19:56 <koalie> ... I think we've achieved that
22:20:02 <koalie> ... there is room for improvement
22:20:08 <gregwhitworth> q+
22:20:10 <koalie> ... I don't need it needs to be a blocker
22:20:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-vision-minutes.html fantasai
22:20:21 <koalie> dsinger: I agree
22:20:24 <koalie> ... we say core values
22:20:27 <Erik> q+
22:20:33 <koalie> ... and we should iterate on it in the future
22:20:53 <amy> +1 to seeing Integrity as a core value which we expect to iterate on in future
22:20:56 <cwilso> PROPOSAL: remove "Needed for statement" from issue 13, but keep it open
22:20:57 <koalie> tantek: so remove the "needed for statement" but keep it open
22:21:02 <koalie> ack gregwhitworth
22:21:02 <cwilso> ack greg
22:21:41 <koalie> gregwhitworth: I feel in general at W3C that there needs to be key goals towards vision, mission, ethics, etc., that we try to achieve against
22:21:57 <cwilso> qq+
22:22:09 <koalie> ... it's a separate process
22:22:14 <koalie> ... and how are you going to track it
22:22:18 <koalie> ... so I recommend closing it
22:22:21 <tantek> ack cwilso
22:22:21 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to greg
22:22:42 <koalie> gregwhitworth: I feel that what's in the vision is great
22:22:53 <koalie> ... but no way to measure anything yet
22:22:54 <Jem> q+ to address the disagreement by Greg
22:22:58 <koalie> ... so another process is needed
22:22:58 <tantek> q?
22:23:02 <tantek> ack Erik
22:23:20 <koalie> ErikTaubeneck: I'm new to this
22:23:26 <koalie> ... "integrity" is used twice
22:23:27 <amy> +q to support Greg's suggestion to closing this but making commitments to ongoing KPIs part of the work of W3C
22:23:44 <koalie> ... this isn't clear how to get to the how
22:23:55 <koalie> ... what is it that is meant by that
22:23:59 <gendler> q+ to discuss KPIs and what is integrity
22:24:07 <koalie> tantek: could you open a new issue?
22:24:13 <tantek> q?
22:24:18 <Jem> I would like to use "a Vision is supposed to create a mental image of what a future web with more "integrity" would be like, and give the reader some plausible reason to believe the vision is achievable. "
22:24:21 <koalie> ... did you intend it as a stateent blocker
22:24:21 <tantek> ack Jem
22:24:21 <Zakim> Jem, you wanted to address the disagreement by Greg
22:24:23 <koalie> Erik: no
22:24:57 <koalie> Jemma: I may miss some context as I'm new
22:25:03 <koalie> ... but mission should "mentor"
22:25:18 <koalie> ... in a vision, "integrity" is essential to have
22:25:31 <koalie> ... that's my different opinion
22:25:41 <cwilso> qq+
22:25:44 <btsavage> btsavage has joined #vision
22:25:56 <cwilso> q-
22:25:57 <Jem> "a Vision is supposed to create a mental image of what a future web with more "integrity" would be like, and give the reader some plausible reason to believe the vision is achievable."
22:26:07 <cwilso> qq+
22:26:10 <tantek> ack cwilso
22:26:10 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to Jem
22:26:12 <koalie> tantek: Jemma if you want to file a "mental image" issue, please do so, or work with Erik on his
22:26:31 <koalie> cwilso: the entire vision is supposed to be that picture of what a future web with integrity looks like
22:26:39 <koalie> ... "integrity" is a hard work to pin down
22:27:04 <btsavage> q+
22:27:33 <koalie> Jemma: a tangible concept unless we talk about privacy or security
22:27:38 <koalie> tantek: I support that
22:27:44 <tantek> ack fantasai
22:27:44 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to propose action for AB chairs and liaisons
22:28:32 <koalie> fantasai: to the extent it's about clarifying vision, there is a role for strategy for Board, AB, TAG, AC need to be developing for W3C
22:28:37 <cwilso> +1
22:28:40 <Erik> +1
22:28:42 <tantek> +1 fantasai
22:28:45 <tantek> q?
22:29:03 <koalie> ... otherwise file as separate issues
22:29:10 <koalie> ... including "how to do it"
22:29:17 <tantek> ack amy
22:29:17 <Zakim> amy, you wanted to support Greg's suggestion to closing this but making commitments to ongoing KPIs part of the work of W3C
22:29:19 <koalie> ... which should then be copied to the AB or BoD
22:29:35 <koalie> Amy: I wanted to support to close as blocking for statement
22:29:51 <koalie> ... but to do what David has been talking about
22:30:00 <koalie> ... if you look up integrity
22:30:06 <fantasai> s/clarifying vision/clarifying vision, should file separate issues about specifically what needs clarifying; to the extent it's about operationalizing the realization of the vision/
22:30:09 <koalie> ... the first definition is about having principles
22:30:27 <koalie> ... which is inline with what we're doing
22:30:35 <koalie> ... so this closes the loop fo me
22:30:41 <koalie> s/fo me/for me/
22:30:49 <koalie> ... instead of entering the rabbit hole
22:31:02 <koalie> q?
22:31:04 <tantek> ack gendler
22:31:04 <Zakim> gendler, you wanted to discuss KPIs and what is integrity
22:31:11 <Jem> love that "having principles"
22:31:46 <koalie> gendler: I'm glad to hear "we can still work on things" and not hearing this is a blocker
22:31:52 <koalie> ... on KPIs
22:31:56 <koalie> ... and how to do better,
22:32:12 <koalie> ... one of the struggles we've had is to let go that this doc isn't a technical document
22:32:27 <koalie> ... greg's suggestion of time KPIs is crucial but not inside the vision
22:32:30 <koalie> gregwhitworth: +1
22:32:42 <dsinger> q+ to talk about distant horizons
22:32:43 <koalie> gendler: I believe this is for leadership groups
22:33:01 <koalie> ... we don't have hard KPIs and that doesn't meant those can't exist
22:33:18 <koalie> ... but if you were to have ones, those would come from this or that secion
22:33:22 <Jem> +1 to gendler
22:33:42 <xueyuan> xueyuan has joined #vision
22:33:46 <koalie> ... re: 'integrity' as a word, we tied to a more technical doc
22:34:00 <koalie> ... since that's not our job and this that other doc deals with it
22:34:10 <song> song has joined #vision
22:34:18 <tantek> ack btsavage
22:35:20 <cwilso> qq+ to answer Ben
22:35:40 <koalie> btsavage: 'integrity' suggests differents things and there are different parts of the document
22:36:07 <Jem> +1 btsavage
22:36:07 <koalie> ... 'fraud/scam/fishing' aren't clearly reflected
22:36:20 <koalie> ... is that intentional?
22:36:26 <tantek> q?
22:36:28 <Jem> q/
22:36:29 <koalie> ... which one of these three did we mean?
22:36:31 <Jem> q?
22:36:36 <tantek> ack gendler
22:36:37 <koalie> s|q/||
22:36:47 <koalie> gendler: we were having that kind of conversation
22:36:50 <Erik> q+ one more definition of integrity
22:36:53 <amy> I think  that thinking of integrity as supporting facts is ok but I don't think we should tie integrity as used here to all possible associations
22:37:13 <koalie> ... to address this, we tried to be more specific
22:37:26 <koalie> ... we spelled it out where needed
22:37:33 <koalie> ... so that it was clearer in specific instances
22:37:43 <koalie> ... the oeverall intent is not to be highly specific
22:37:50 <koalie> ... 'integrity' is a big word
22:37:50 <Erik> q+, one other definition of integrity
22:37:55 <koalie> ... each of the definitions are useful
22:38:10 <tantek> qq+ re: is intentional that 'fraud/scam/fishing' aren't clearly reflected
22:38:12 <Erik> q+ add. integrity def
22:38:17 <tantek> ack fantasai
22:38:17 <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to distinguish operational principles section vs vision for the web
22:38:19 <koalie> q?
22:38:29 <tantek> q+ Erik to add. integrity def
22:38:31 <Erik> q-
22:38:36 <tantek> q- add.
22:38:39 <tantek> q- integrity
22:38:42 <Erik> ty
22:38:43 <tantek> q- def
22:38:56 <Erik> q+
22:38:56 <gendler> q+ Erik
22:38:57 <koalie> fantasai: @@@
22:39:08 <btsavage> q+
22:39:09 <Jem> q?
22:39:10 <tantek> ack cwilso
22:39:10 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to btsavage to answer Ben
22:39:24 <koalie> cwilso: 'integrity' appears only twice
22:39:30 <koalie> ... one time it's very clear
22:39:33 <fantasai> s/@@@/bullet point list is about operational principles, so the concept of integrity of the Web would not be part of that list, but rather in other sections/
22:39:37 <koalie> ... scams and fishing, for example
22:39:46 <koalie> ... the second time it to say to rise even further
22:39:52 <koalie> ... and this can be read either way
22:39:56 <koalie> ... intended to be both
22:40:05 <tantek> q?
22:40:29 <koalie> ... on 'how do we operationalize combatting'? I don't think we know what to put there
22:40:32 <tantek> vq?
22:40:35 <koalie> ... we've only started to look
22:40:46 <koalie> ... we don't have a privacy working group yet
22:40:51 <tantek> q?
22:41:02 <koalie> tantek: Ben, no it wasn't intentional
22:41:03 <tantek> ack tantek
22:41:03 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to react to gendler to discuss is intentional that 'fraud/scam/fishing' aren't clearly reflected
22:41:06 <Jem> then should we create the ticket for adding integrity to "Operational Principles for W3C"?
22:41:06 <tantek> ack jgraham
22:41:36 <tantek> Zakim, close the queue
22:41:36 <Zakim> ok, tantek, the speaker queue is closed
22:41:57 <koalie> jgraham: what I read and what I heard don't quite meet
22:42:15 <amy> q+ to mention this vision as the mark we make, and can be a deciding point for or against what we take on.  eg: misinformation
22:42:16 <Jem> just curious who are the readers and audiences for this vision document.
22:42:17 <koalie> ... to me integrity is related to agency which people have
22:42:20 <koalie> ... not the Web
22:42:35 <tantek> s/no it wasn't intentional/no it wasn't intentional to not clearly reflect 'fraud/scam/fishing'
22:42:38 <tantek> q?
22:42:57 <koalie> ... I struggle to explain more that sentence given the word what is should convery
22:43:00 <koalie> s/very/vey/
22:43:13 <koalie> ... So I prefer "principles" as Amy mentioned
22:43:31 <tantek> q?
22:43:52 <koalie> tantek: we can postpone that discussion if we agree that this is not a blocker for statement
22:43:55 <amy> +1 to close as statement blocker (while other issues will be opened to discuss terms)
22:44:15 <cwilso> PROPOSAL: remove "Needed for statement" from issue 13, but keep it open
22:44:23 <tantek> +1
22:44:25 <cwilso> +1
22:44:27 <tantek> q?
22:44:31 <koalie> +1
22:44:47 <gendler> +1
22:44:55 <tantek> ack dsinger
22:44:56 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to talk about distant horizons
22:44:57 <amy> +1
22:44:58 <fantasai> +1 to removing "needed for statement"; rather than keeping open transfer to Board this issue (which is about operationalizing the Vision), and open new issues about ambiguities in wording
22:44:59 <jgraham> +1
22:45:06 <koalie> dsinger: 100% with Max
22:45:17 <Erik> q-
22:45:17 <koalie> ... vision is what you're driving towards
22:45:19 <tantek> ack Erik
22:45:25 <tantek> ack btsavage
22:45:34 <Jem> Thanks for great discussion, everyone.
22:45:50 <koalie> btsavage: my favourite among the listed is the patent policy
22:45:51 <Glenda> Glenda has left #vision
22:45:56 <tantek> no objections and only support for the proposal, declaring it resolved
22:46:08 <koalie> ... I would love to see how standards should be designed to avoid abuse
22:46:09 <tantek> RESOLVED: remove "Needed for statement" from issue 13, but keep it open
22:46:18 <koalie> Zakim, close this item
22:46:18 <Zakim> agendum 4 closed
22:46:20 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
22:46:20 <Zakim> 5. Next steps / where discussion continues [from tpac-breakout-bot]
22:46:27 <koalie> Zakim, next item
22:46:27 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Next steps / where discussion continues -- taken up [from tpac-breakout-bot]
22:46:33 <koalie> tantek: thanks all!
22:46:38 <koalie> ... we know our next steps
22:46:41 <kevin> kevin has left #vision
22:46:59 <koalie> [adjourned]
22:47:03 <koalie> RRSagent, make minutes
22:47:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-vision-minutes.html koalie
22:50:02 <fbedora> fbedora has left #vision
23:01:09 <tantek> tantek has joined #vision
23:03:40 <tnitot> tnitot has joined #vision
23:03:45 <AramZS> AramZS has joined #vision
23:10:00 <tantek> tantek has joined #vision
23:13:41 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #vision
23:52:28 <amy> amy has joined #vision
23:57:36 <amy> amy has joined #vision
23:58:11 <amy> amy has joined #vision