Re: Reminder: Unsuitable language & Code of Ethics & Professional Conduct

Joe,
Thanks, this is helpful, and I agree that this is a highly problematic time
for any nuanced conversation where the precise meanings of words matter,
and unfortunately some of our greatest looming issues depend on nuance and
clear discussion to solve.

I really like your tie back to the ethical web principles as a framework to
look at that Moxie post.  That is a view that we should look at clearly as
a community and is a great way to tackle the issues in the post head on in
a way that avoids some of the more emotional responses that we
unfortunately are seeing all over the place right now.

Mike Prorock
CTO, Founder
https://mesur.io/



On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:49 AM Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Mike.
>
> I appreciate the clarification that at least one of the alleged offenses
> was, in fact, my use of the term "fascist".
>
> I also appreciate the clarification that my message was not seen by the
> chairs as a violation of the CEPC.
>
> I stand by my use of that term in a respectful conversation about the
> arguments put forth by Moxie Marlinspike and recently celebrated by others
> on this list. Their arguments should not be celebrated, IMO, and I believe
> I have explained in a respectful manner why I hold that opinion.
>
> I also feel we have likely exhausted this forum as a useful place for
> discussing these issues. While Tzviya did not review the communications in
> question, she did help clarify that terms that *might *be offensive to
> anyone in the international W3C community are not welcome.
>
> Since I don't see a way to continue a conversation that is literally about
> the embedded fascism in certain technical architectures without using what
> is apparently an offensive term, I'll move that conversation to a community
> that can more effectively engage on the issue.
>
> It saddens me that the W3C would censure the use of critical terminology
> in the midst of global disruption caused by forces using the same tactics
> and arguments as those responsible for outrageous historical
> offenses--tactics and arguments which are most aptly described using that
> censured terminology. I sincerely hope that those who champion the W3C as
> an organization taking a stand for good will consider the following W3C
> Ethical Web Principles in opposing the notion that individuals don't
> deserve the ability to run their own servers.
> https://w3ctag.github.io/ethical-web-principles/
>
> 2.2 The web should not cause harm to society
> 2.3 The web must support healthy community and debate
> 2.4 The web is for all people
> 2.5 Security and privacy are essential
> 2.6 The web must enable freedom of expression
> 2.7 The web must make it possible for people to verify the information
> they see
> 2.8 The web must enhance individuals' control and power
>
> Seems to me that Moxie's arguments run contrary to at least these seven
> Ethical Web Principals, no matter what terms you use to make that case.
>
> -j
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022, at 6:06 AM, Mike Prorock wrote:
>
> Joe,
> A lot to unpack here, and I will miss a few things, though not
> intentionally.
>
> First a few notes from my perspective as a chair, and I believe as to why
> Heather chimed in and I fully support her comment.
> 1) There have been multiple uses of language on the mailing list lately
> that have been quite inflammatory to some audiences, including use of the
> term Fascism
> 2) We should try to be cognizant of how things will be perceived by
> others, and if we can avoid politically charged language we should.
> 3) We should be looking at this mailing list as a way to advance common
> goals related to technical standards for the greater adoption of
> technologies that increase self sovereignty, privacy, and security, and to
> discuss technical issues related to work items within the CCG.
>
> In this case, Heather posted as a top level thread that some concern has
> been raised, on and off list by members of the community, that certain
> items have been taken as offensive.
>
> You will note that Heather did not state that those items were a violation
> of the CEPC, only that "All members of the CCG agree to abide by the Code
> of Ethics and
> Professional Conduct" (
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2022Jan/0243.html)
>
> Can we as chairs do better? always.  In this case however, I would not
> take it as a personal attack, and If you want to hop on a direct call with
> myself, Heather, or both of us; or to discuss the topic on a CCG call, as
> always, we are happy to facilitate.
>
> On the practical matter of how reported concerns related to or violations
> of the CEPC are currently being handled by the Chairs:
> In general if there is a clear violation of the CEPC that individual will
> be reached out to directly by the chairs, and most often, if the matter is
> serious enough, a quick call is usually all it takes to discuss the issue
> and resolve it.  If it is a minor issue, there might be a quick note out to
> the list or on a related github comment that basically says "guys, we agree
> on way more than we disagree on, and have some really important common
> goals here, lets try and get along and if possible avoid offending folks".
> That latter should act as a self reflection point, and I would not take it
> as a personal attack, especially if, as in this case, it is noted right up
> front that there was clear good intention.  The chairs need some practical
> way if approached by individuals from the community to say "let's be
> mindful" and acknowledge some concern, without trying to kill the
> conversation, which in relation to this topic and post, I at least have no
> desire of doing.    If for some reason there is repeat behaviour that is
> highly problematic that individual might be referred to a W3C Ombuds to
> help identify and avoid repeat issues.
>
> Mike Prorock
> CTO, Founder
> https://mesur.io/
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Andrieu, PMP
>                    joe@legreq.com
> LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS
>    +1(805)705-8651
> Do what matters.
>                  http://legreq.com <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com>
>
>
>