IRC log of vision on 2024-09-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

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