W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > February 2022

[MINUTES] W3C CCG Credentials CG Call - 2022-02-08

From: CCG Minutes Bot <minutes@w3c-ccg.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 19:53:49 +0000
Message-ID: <E1nK3tR-0006T6-DU@mimas.w3.org>
Thanks to Manu Sporny for scribing this week!

The transcript for the call is now available here:

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2022-02-08/

Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio of the meeting is available at the following location:

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2022-02-08/audio.ogg

----------------------------------------------------------------
W3C CCG Weekly Teleconference Transcript for 2022-02-08

Agenda:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2022Feb/0013.html
Topics:
  1. W3C Migration to a "Legal Entity"
  2. History on W3C Legal Entity Status
  3. Possible Outcomes for W3C Legal Entity
  4. Interplay between W3C and Community Groups
  5. Differences Between W3C and IETF
Organizer:
  Heather Vescent, Mike Prorock, Wayne Chang
Scribe:
  Manu Sporny
Present:
  Mike Prorock, David Singer, Chris Abernethy (mesur.io), Chris 
  Wilson, Manu Sporny, Tzviya Siegman, Mahmoud Alkhraishi, TallTed 
  // Ted Thibodeau (he/him) (OpenLinkSw.com), Eric Siow, Leonard 
  Rosenthol, Léonie Watson, James Chartrand, Erica Connell, Leo, 
  BrentZ, Marty Reed, Charles E. Lehner, Dmitri Zagidulin, Orie 
  Steele, Heather Vescent, Leonard Rosenthal, Anil John, Adrian 
  Gropper, Kayode Ezike, Markus Sabadello, Kerri Lemoie, Jeff 
  Orgel, Bob Wyman, Ted Thibodeau, Harrison Tang, rgrant (Ryan 
  Grant), Taylor, FN67e62c664b45ab8d4d0d9c4bf61b40a7, Ryan Grant, 
  PL, Tantek Çelik, Brent Zundel, Tantek (he/him)

Manu Sporny is scribing.
Mike Prorock:  Let's go ahead and kick off.
Mike Prorock: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2022Feb/0013.html
Mike Prorock:  Hello and welcome to weekly CCG, apologies for 
  audio issues, fighting a few Chrome bugs right now.
Mike Prorock:  Just a quick IP note, anyone participating, any 
  substatntive contributers to CCG work items, you need to sign IPR 
  agreement. Please read the agenda, if you have detailed 
  questions, we're going to dive into legal entity issues at W3C.

Topic: W3C Migration to a "Legal Entity"

Mike Prorock:  As context for today, quite a few folks have been 
  following on W3C and issues, some items/issues around formation 
  of legal entity. Context around that, pulled together quick list 
  of questions for background on topic. Insight, input from AB 
  folks -- what's going on. Increase transparency.
Mike Prorock:  We are recording the CCG call, this will be made 
  public.
<tallted> we're actually forbidden to record if there's an 
  objection by a call participant
Heather Vescent:  Are we using transcriber or auto transcribing?
Mike Prorock:  We are not going to record audio, we will be 
  manually scribing the meeting.

Topic: History on W3C Legal Entity Status

Mike Prorock:  We'll do some background here, introduction. Chris 
  Wilson, can you give us a history on the W3C Legal Entity status? 
  Why the need to restructure?
Chris Wilson:  We wanted to start out by trying to explain 
  backstory. It can be confusing, we covered this in AC office 
  hours -- important to highlight that W3C is not a single legal 
  entity, there is no "W3C Inc.". There is not central entity. W3C 
  was created by department in MIT and other organizations. The 
  reason they did this, it was expedient.
Chris Wilson:  Over time, this has been less and less effective, 
  what used to hold everything together (the Directory - Tim 
  Berners-Lee) was a strong directing figure. He has more or less 
  retired at this point, what remains is something that doesn't 
  have a strong vision, principles. What we have today is four 
  entities, no clear direction, no financial oversight.
Chris Wilson:  Things like Formal Objections get handed to the 
  team, they're escalated to TimBl, then delegated to team, then 
  Team magically decides.
Chris Wilson:  MIT has decided to end their hosting relationship, 
  which has prompted the timeline ... pushed forward decision for 
  single legal entity... how will this affect people, let's pass it 
  over to leonie.
Mike Prorock:  What is the impact to members, other folks 
  participating?
Léonie Watson:  I don't think it's going to be a big change, 
  everything is going to say very much as it has been - concentrate 
  on building standards, working groups, etc.
Léonie Watson:  What will become better, though is governance. We 
  have hosts that have been hands off for much of the existence. We 
  will end up with a Board that has a more hands on involvement. 
  For a community as broad and as diverse as W3C will be important 
  to have a strong Board.
Mike Prorock:  For governance models, boards, distinction -- 
  financial and strategic directions -- group activities, member 
  activities, any follow up thoughts, additional clarifications?
Léonie Watson:  Activities around technical work will carry on as 
  they always have. The Board, though, is going to be much more 
  about strategic and financial oversight. It could be argued that 
  we haven't had enough, historically. There will be a much better 
  separation of concerns.
Léonie Watson:  We will have a board that will have a higher 
  level of oversight.
Mike Prorock:  Where are we from a legal entity status?
David Singer:  Overall, the Advisory Board and W3C Management 
  have been working on this for quite a while now... the steering 
  committee is unwilling to give up control of their part of the 
  organization. We lack coordinated oversight from governance point 
  of view.
<mprorock> I see you Bob - will be running through some 
  groundwork and background questions then moving on to the queue
David Singer:  Trade Associations usually put away a buffer of 
  funding... that was 25 years ago for W3C. The Hosts have provided 
  that buffer from their own funding, but have not assigned any of 
  that to W3C. The Hosts have provided small amounts of money for 
  transition, to cover legal costs, but not enough for operating 
  buffer. ISOC has provided a willingness to consider funding, but 
  they have a couple of conditions met -- member-led consortium, 
  match member
Funding.
<bobwyman> no problem.
David Singer:  There might be funding from Europe as well, but 
  don't know what conditions that's attached to.
David Singer:  We also don't have a compelling governance 
  structure and monetary funding needs, so that is needed.
David Singer:  There is a complex nature of engagement w/ Hosts 
  -- they support W3C work with accessibility with contracts/grants 
  and hire W3C staff and manage their contracts.
Mike Prorock:  What are we looking at in practical terms, here?

Topic: Possible Outcomes for W3C Legal Entity

Eric Siow:  In my mind, there are four possible outcomes -- let 
  me start with the worst case scenario:
Eric Siow:  The first, nothing happens, MIT contracts end... I 
  don't think MIT would do that, they feel a sense of 
  responsibility to not let W3C be without a good transition. 
  Nevertheless, this is a possibility.
Eric Siow:  The second possibility, we remain in a host 
  structure, basically status-quo. MIT will say -- Hey, you were 
  unable to spin out, we'll keep you in structure as you continue 
  to work on it, or they may transition the host agreement to 
  another university. Harvard has been thrown around, no idea how 
  serious that proposal is. Web is no longer something new and 
  sexy, been around for 25 years, the prospect of another 
  University replacing MIT is probably
Not high.
Eric Siow:  The third possibility, the EU funding comes through, 
  but then again they've been talking about it for a few years 
  now... IF EU funding comes through, there are expected to be 
  strings attached, could be quite EU centric.
Eric Siow:  Fourth possibility, new legal entity co-funded by a 
  couple of members and ISOC -- host transitioning to several 
  agreements, that is stalled due to misperceptions and 
  mischaracterizations. For those companies that want to volunteer, 
  that becomes difficult for us, none of those companies want to be 
  subject to negative PR.
Eric Siow:  That's where we're at right now.
Mike Prorock:  Status around EU funding, where is the 
  communication breakdown there?
Eric Siow:  I don't think there is a communication breakdown, 
  it's mainly driven out of ERCIM, they just need to get the EU 
  government/authority to give them the money. As far as we know, 
  they say "it's possible for us to get the money", but they've 
  been talking about that for two years now.
Tzviya Siegman:  We've been working on this for a few years. 
  There is another session later today if you want to attend.
Tzviya Siegman:  The Steering Committee are people from the four 
  Hosts, Tim Berners-Lee, and the W3C CEO -- Jeff Jaffe.
Tzviya Siegman:  The Advisory Board are elected by W3C Members -- 
  we need to get consensus across a very broad group of people, we 
  need to have clear communication.
<tallted> tangent -- What "office hours" are folks speaking of?  
  I'm sure there's a calendar or mailing list I should have 
  subscribed to, but haven't...  Please point me (and others) 
  there?
Tzviya Siegman:  There is rising risk of significant economic 
  downturn, could cause a problem with funding. People are 
  increasingly concerned around speed at which this is moving... 
  W3C Members are concerned, W3C Staff are concerned about their 
  future.
Mike Prorock:  When we're talking about W3C staff, we're taking 
  about MIT Host organization -- employee of MIT, not W3C (since 
  technically, no one is employed by W3C since it's not a legal 
  entity).
Tzviya Siegman:  Yes, each Host employs "W3C Staff"... MIT, 
  ERCIM, Japan.
Mike Prorock:  How can members support and engage positively, 
  what is your take on this?
<tantek> having trouble with mic
<mprorock> tantek - a refresh might work if it isn't a system 
  issue
Chris Wilson:  The Advisory Board needs to have more engagement 
  from community -- Advisory board has been heads-down trying to 
  solve problems... we haven't done good enough job 
  communicating... maybe we should have Advisory Board hours? 
  Engage in this conversation, insist on truthful and transparent 
  information. We're all stakeholders here. We're not trying to 
  represent only people on AB... we want to represent everyone that 
  has a stake in the Web.
Chris Wilson:  A lot of organizations started out as Benevolent 
  Dictator For Life model... and transitioned away from that. W3C 
  is ready for that, getting Steering COmmittee to buy off on 
  member-led organization is important, and others getting involved 
  is important.
Mike Prorock:  What about member-driven aspects? Something that 
  may not be touched on by Chris/others?
David Singer:  Problem w/ making progress is the question: TimBL 
  is formally in charge, SC is formaly steering 9but haven't in a 
  while), management team is not centralized, operating w/ four 
  heads... fallen to Advisory Board, but AB is advisory. This is a 
  recipe for stasis and problems and that's where we find 
  ourselves.
<bobwyman> He's not on.
Tzviya Siegman:  I know many of you are not full W3C members, 
  we've had some great feedback from this group -- Orie and Mike 
  were in the office hours, a lot of you are active on AC Forum -- 
  it's important to have that input, it does more than what you 
  might think.
<mprorock> Tantek if you can jump in post Tzvia audio wise, that 
  would be great
<mprorock> @ted - going to start queue in a minute
Tzviya Siegman:  It's really important to see feedback from 
  across W3C -- anyone that does not have access, there are other 
  ways to get input ... we are trying to keep things as transparent 
  as possible.
Tzviya Siegman: https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly
Tzviya Siegman:  If we have transparency, we don't have secrets.
Tzviya Siegman: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/
Tzviya Siegman: https://github.com/w3c/le-governance
<rgrant_(ryan_grant)> tantek, try the phone: +1 602 932 2243 x1

Topic: Interplay between W3C and Community Groups

Heather Vescent:  I've got a couple of quesitons -- most 
  burning/direct question -- new governance would be more hands on 
  -- CGs have been more hands off, haven't been able to get much 
  support from W3C core...
Heather Vescent:  I know you're focusing on WGs, but CGs are also 
  a part of W3C... how does CG governance change?
<heather_vescent> My Q:
Léonie Watson:  Yes, CGs are a part of W3C, many of us run CGs. I 
  don't expect much to change, CGs will continue to operate as they 
  always have -- Board will focus on strategy/financials, but don't 
  expect them to hav eany real input/sense of direction over 
  technical direction of standards.
Heather Vescent:  These changes you're making today, moment in 
  time, opportunity to rethink operational structure of way W3C has 
  worked, how do these changes impact work that comes out of this 
  organization from 3-5 years?
<heather_vescent> Mike - I have one last question if possible to 
  ask.
Mike Prorock: +1 Heather
<mprorock> we have time
David Singer:  I forgot to mention, we've been doing work on 
  Director-free -- general vision for future, for many members of 
  AB, is consortium that is member-led and "daddy free" -- we've 
  been operating with TimBL Director... but can we replace that 
  figure? I've argued, we've grown up, we need to be able to govern 
  ourselves to make decisions. So vision is very much a member led 
  consortium, oversight w/ budgets, strategy, accounts, etc. 
  Looking ahead
Strategically, governing ourselves to meet needs of community.
David Singer:  Some feel that W3C should be considered more as 
  public-interest -- Web Foundation is for that... W3C is about 
  technical standards that meet the needs of society, implemented 
  by members, membership is key. Vision is key for that.
David Singer:  We must learn to self govern, how to deal with 
  Formal objections (which we're drowning in w/o a father figure), 
  we need to have a coordinated management structure, set funding 
  principles, set management principles.
Tzviya Siegman:  I wanted to just add two points, AB has drafted 
  a document, kind of a mission/vision statement (link to follow), 
  to jump start conversation about true vision for W3C.
Chris Wilson: https://github.com/WebStandardsFuture/Vision
Mike Prorock: +1 Cwilso
Tzviya Siegman:  We also need to focus on modernization, some of 
  W3Cs technologies haven't gotten better -- pipelining, make W3C 
  website more modern, other things that can't discuss today, but 
  can talk about them another time.
Heather Vescent:  What actions are you taking to make updates 
  available to internal and external audiences, there are some 
  opportunities for existing members, just curious to learn, do you 
  have plans -- ways to keep community updated as things progress?
Mike Prorock:  What about AB office hours, anything else?
Tzviya Siegman:  That document on future vision is open to 
  everyone. AB office hours, don't know who that would be open 
  to... we'll have to figure that out.
Tzviya Siegman:  AB Minutes are W3C Member-only, perhaps we need 
  to publicize this more... there are some things that are 
  sensitive, but we strive to make everything as public and visible 
  as possible.
<mprorock> Moving on to queue after tantek here - I believe bob 
  wyman is on point
Tantek Çelik:  Hi everyone, from Mozilla and W3C AB, wanted to 
  jump in -- I can sympathize a lot with Heather's question, have 
  worked w/ W3C at various levels... IE, member, ... one of the 
  things we're trying to do w/ AB, move more and more what AB does, 
  process/bureaucracy into the open for more transparency and more 
  engagement.
Tantek Çelik: https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB
Tantek Çelik:  One of the things in AB, we try to do as much work 
  on wiki...
Tantek Çelik:  We have continued to make things public when we 
  can, there are some issues that are sensitive to specific 
  organizations/individuals, we try to do our best to respect their 
  privacy/sensitivities, everything that involves a greater 
  community -- AB gets a certain amount of information, we've made 
  some progress on that, can make more progress on that front.
Tantek Çelik:  Happy to have engagement today, thanks for the 
  invitation.
Mike Prorock:  We really appreciate the AB coming out to talk w/ 
  us. The reality is W3C has grown/expanded, the personal 
  interconnectivity might not be there, lack of meetings, etc.
David Singer:  Quick apology for messy nature of AB, no one 
  expected things to go on for that long... sorry, it's a difficult 
  problem.
<heather_vescent> The sharing and transparency is appreciated. 
  Thank you.
Bob Wyman:  Folk will remember, back in late 1990s, there were a 
  lot of people miffed when Web space was pulled out at IETF and 
  moved over to W3C. Symbolically, the difference between RFC1866 
  RFC2854 -- going from spec to media type definition... question 
  is: Why wouldn't standards-making portions move back to IETF? 
  They're transparent, "daddy-free", why not just move the 
  standards bit back to IETF?
David Singer:  We did talk about that, operating modes are so 
  different from W3C and IETF, we couldn't figure out how to do 
  that w/o dislocating, it remains an open question.
<cwilso> qq+
Eric Siow:  In addition to what David said, we still have a Host 
  controlling W3C -- at end of day, in my personal view, we need to 
  have a consensus/broad support from membership in whatever we do.
Eric Siow:  That point I'm making isn't specific to IETF, 
  whatever plan we go in, the key ingredient is to have broad 
  membership support.
Mike Prorock:  Great point

Topic: Differences Between W3C and IETF

Chris Wilson:  I wanted to chime in, there are a lot of values 
  that W3C has that is not obvious, doesn't align well in IETF... 
  we have been looking at different models, interestingly IETF 
  isn't quite that either and they have some positive things about 
  culture there, but at same time, they're not a 1-to-1 match for 
  what W3C has done in the past, didn't want to lose that.
Tantek Çelik:  I appreciate Bob's question, we should be making 
  considerate choices, where and how to make standards -- creation 
  of W3C from IETF, interesting history there, my own opinion: 
  Something we've learned from open source communities and IETF, 
  BDFL model is obsolete, W3C has not moved past that, one way or 
  another, we need to do that.
<mprorock> BDFL - Benevolent Dictator for Life
Tantek Çelik:  We recognize that what the requires is a higher 
  level of mutual trust in the community, if you don't have BDFL, 
  you have to build a higher level of trust in community... see 
  link for details.
<bobwyman> In what ways is the standards process of W3C better 
  than that of IETF? What would be lost by relying more on IETF?
<tzviya> CEPC= Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct
Tantek Çelik:  That is essential to move into model that doesn't 
  have a BDFL... specifically, around IETF - lots overlaps with 
  IETF, but there is a lot there that W3C has done and gone far 
  beyond. Not an insult to IETF, but we have attracted another 
  diverse set of folks that work on web standards, that is 
  reflective of different values -- horizontal review, 
  accessibility, W3C TAG operate differently, Code of Ethics and 
  Professional Conduct -- we are supporters
Of CEPC, but it's different than code of conduct at IETF.
Tantek Çelik:  It's important to maintain and not lose, how we 
  maintain them is the question.
Mike Prorock:  Yes, there are unique things there in how 
  standards are approached.
<rgrant> Why not work the good ideas of CEPC into IETF, if 
  they're good then why would they object?
Ted Thibodeau:  I'm not an AC rep, not an AB member, there have 
  been references to a number of things that are theoretically in 
  public view, but I have not seen them yet. There have been 
  references to office hows -- what calendar, where is that listed, 
  how can I join?
Ted Thibodeau:  I'm very well engaged, but I'm unaware of a chunk 
  of things -- I'm in W3C Process CG, but this isn't mentioned 
  there...
Mike Prorock:  You're getting at something important Ted, there 
  are gaps here.
Chris Wilson:  I just wanted to say, there are definitely some 
  gaps, W3C management has centered around W3C staff as proxy for 
  all of membership, at one point it fit well.
Chris Wilson:  For example, I am AC Rep for Google and one 
  alternate, but it's been keeping some people out that have 
  powerful things to say, like people who aren't AC reps... good 
  feedback to take back. AC office hours have been for AC... I 
  think they should just be W3C Office Hours, and whoever shows up, 
  shows up.
Chris Wilson:  As someone that's a frequent target, minutes and 
  what you can do with those minutes, going truly public can lead 
  to exposure that make some of us clam up a bit.
Ted Thibodeau:  I can understand some of that, but this 
  conversation is happening in CG... outer fringes of W3C 
  involvement... many in here aren't exposed to this level of 
  detail.
Tantek Çelik: +1 Strongly sympathize with TallTed's questions and 
  concerns
<rgrant> queue check
Ted Thibodeau:  I know pay to play model is problematic, company 
  has to be big enough to make stuff happen... also have to pay 
  dues... it's an evil nonetheless, I don't have answers.
<orie> Speaking as an AC rep, I pay for transparency, and 
  accountability... and open standards work, conducted on a 
  reasoanble timeline... all of which seem blocked by the LE issue.
<tzviya> vq
<bobwyman> Some CCG members, like me, are not affiliated with 
  deep-pockets employers who can pay the W3C fees.
Heather Vescent: +1 Ted, b/c the reason *I* participate here is 
  to head off Unintended Consequences of misapplication of 
  technology (standards) at the root level. Which is a very 
  different motivation for other participation.
<heather_vescent> Also, I sincerely appreciate Chris, David, 
  Eric, Leonie, Tzviya  and Tantek for being here and speaking with 
  us. I know this is a conversation in progress. And I thank you 
  for listening to this community and perspective.
David Singer:  One of the problems here is the pandemic, fall 
  TPC, or spring meeting -- take questions from members -- lacking 
  those meetings that's been harder to do
<orie> I would suggest stop processing FOs and Charters until the 
  future of the organization has been secured.
Tzviya Siegman:  I agree with what David said -- people aren't 
  equipped with questions that need to be asked. Legal entity on 
  spring agenda. It needs to be more than AC that's informed in 
  office hours, we have to find a better way to get this 
  information out. Perhaps send it to Chairs and forward it on.
Mike Prorock:  Can we stretch the meeting out a bit more? Can 
  folks go past top of hour?
<pl> go for it
Ryan Grant:  I thought IETF question was important, funding is 
  existential. I didn't hear specific incompatibilities -- vague 
  incompatibilities - I think that's a concern.
<orie> IETF doesn't care about politics or feelings enough... 
  maybe harsh, but true... see CEPC differences.
Chris Wilson:  I would raise as a specific thing, IETF model for 
  patent policy is very different, a lot looser, there is nothing 
  to prevent anyone from taking work to IETF, to not doing it at 
  W3C. Progressively over time, we've been trying to ensure that 
  W3C isn't a place where things get sucked in and can't get out -- 
  can move work elsewhere, can move work to WHATWG... if IETF is a 
  good match, go do that work at IETF. Where is the community that 
  wants to work
On this? <-- that's the question. You have to respect patent 
  policy and copyright, plenty of efforts wrt. IETF -- not 
  interested in changing that, if IETF is the better location, I am 
  not opposed to that.
Mike Prorock:  Those things are complementary.
Tantek Çelik: +1 Strong agreement with cwilso, let's support 
  communities choosing their own destination
Anil John:  I am a technical director at US Department of 
  Homeland Security -- lot of things need to be fixed, but let me 
  share why we chose why to engage at W3C for work in public 
  interest.
Anil John:  Community Groups enabled anyone globally to provide 
  input into incubation for things that could end up on standards 
  track, important for us to have global technical audience to 
  weigh in. Yes, it's difficult and noisy and messy, but it is of 
  immense value to have a Community structure that provides input 
  into that work.
Anil John:  We liked that it was an IP protected environment, and 
  having a path for going from there to official standardization at 
  W3C... patent and royalty free is very important for public 
  governments.
Heather Vescent: +1 Anil. The Community Group structure supports 
  government innovation funding in a transparent and open way. 
  Seeing this happen here at the w3C has given me renewed faith 
  that government funding is an alternate viability to supporting 
  technology innovations.
Anil John:  This is technology that's important for single actors 
  and large governments. I hear concerns that are raised, I hear 
  phrases like "Member-driven" -- there are many organizations out 
  there that pretend to be standards organizations, but they are 
  vendor-driven facades... W3C is not one of those.
Mike Prorock: +1 Anil - the "false" standard group is something 
  we deal with a lot, especially in agriculture
Anil John:  As you go to member-driven, is it truly inclusive, is 
  it truly for a broader public audience, or does it give more 
  weight to sponsors/funders. Whatever governance structure for the 
  future, funding is part and parcel, but if you want openness of 
  web to persist, you need to balance between not just pay to play 
  members be the ones that can have majority vote and block other 
  work.
Anil John:  FInancial transaction transparency is very important, 
  this is why DHS is here and we continue to champion W3C paths to 
  standardization, how best to structure governance model moving 
  forward?
Mike Prorock:  We see these "false standards orgs" in agriculture 
  space daily.
Eric Siow:  Anil, thank you for your comments, it resonates with 
  those of us that have been working really hard on this. Leonie 
  has made a point earlier that we want to make sure that all 
  technical work that members, everything we're used to in terms of 
  technical development, innovation remains the same.
Eric Siow:  Speaking on behalf of Intel, we are one of the 
  organizations that would be willing to consider helping to fund 
  new legal entity. I can assure you that my organization is very 
  conscientious of keeping the ecosystem healthy and having wide 
  participation.
Eric Siow:  We do not want to get into a situation where it is 
  perceived that we're taking ove rthe Web, a healthy ecosystem 
  serving the public is the goal.
Chris Wilson:  To add to what Eric and Leonie said, it's 
  important to understand -- two efforts in AB, legal entity work 
  and Director-free effort. They are heavily related, but not 
  exactly the same. Director has responsibilities about managing 
  entity itself. Director also drive technical program, they are 
  permanent member of TAG, that's where Formal Objections go today. 
  We are trying to treat these as separate, things related to 
  technical program, those have to
Be non-preferential.
Chris Wilson:  We have to ensure that people are not "buying 
  technical decisions" -- that would be bad, many of us think 
  that's bad.
Chris Wilson:  The hard part is getting people to care and show 
  up -- I'm particularly masochistic because I guess I keep showing 
  up to this, Google has enough money to help me do that, but not 
  to drive their technical agenda, we don't talk about technical 
  agendas in Advisory Board, for eample, important to solve for 
  that, come up w/ solutions for structure as well. People show up 
  -- need to set up organization for success.
Chris Wilson:  ... But we need to keep that separate from 
  technical decision making.
Mike Prorock:  That is a great point to call out, there is a 
  financial stake for Hosts... transparency around financial 
  management is difficult.
Tantek Çelik:  To add to what Chris and Eric said, I want to make 
  it clear, how do people end up on Advisory Board, there is an 
  election every year where half of the AB is elected. People 
  nominate... people don't need to be W3C members per sec (Invited 
  Experts can be elected). People brought to AB are expected to 
  provide their perspective NOT their company's perspective. If you 
  look at AB, you can look at companies, but we're there. I have 
  worked for Apple, Mozilla, Microsoft, I know what big corporation 
  influence looks like, but have also done as individual, as a 
  startup, it's really important that we keep playing field open, 
  regardless of organization affiliation or perceived influence in 
  that regard.
Tantek Çelik:  For everyone on AB, they are bringing their own 
  expertise, their own value judgements, not bringing "this is our 
  company policy". I don't know if folks were aware of that, but 
  that's what we're bringing to AB.
Bob Wyman:  Tell us in text [scribe assist by Ryan Grant]
<mprorock> thanks bob - please get Question in text
<mprorock> and / or on the list/github
Eric Siow:  Just to react to financial transparency, and add on 
  to Tantek. I have a financial background, I'm not an engineer, at 
  the AB, shocked at financial statement, none of it made sense to 
  me. How can an organization be around for 25 years and not have 
  financial reserves, if an economic downturn, org will be in 
  trouble. From that perspective, whoever provides funding, 
  foundation, ISOC, or volunteer companies, it makes sense to have 
  oversight over
Financial discipline.
<bobwyman> I'm not a member of W3C but, I've been working on this 
  stuff longer than virtually anyone who is. While I can 
  participate easily in IETF work, I'm always wondering what I'm 
  "allowed" to do or see in the W3C...
<heather_vescent> Thank you all.
<heather_vescent> Thank you Mike for setting up this call.
Mike Prorock:  Thanks all for the conversation today, really 
  great to have the AB here today -- good precedent to have this 
  out in the open. This is a step in the right direction. Can't 
  thank you enough, this is an important topic, looking forward to 
  finding a way through this.
<charles_e._lehner> Great discussion, very interesting!
<eric_siow> Thank you for having us.
<rgrant> thx
<orie> Thanks AB!
<tantek> Thanks for having us!
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2022 19:53:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:28 UTC