Re: W3C Formal Objections: When Powerful Corporations Play Both Sides

Further to Mike's comments, I wanted to say the following:

1. I disagree with the substance of the objections raised by Google,
Mozilla, etc. I expect that they will (and should) lose this argument on
its merits.

2. I don't agree that it is irresponsible or unfair to withdraw from a
working group and then object to the output of that group, even at the last
minute. Just because people want to make a standard doesn't mean the world
has to collaborate with them, or bless what they produce. Objecting to a
proposed standard is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, in theory, if you
can make a principled case for your objection. And, while it is courteous
to tell someone that you plan to object, there is no rule that requires
this to happen early. If adjudication is fair, it's the argument, not the
timing, that matters.

3. tf the people objecting to this proposal hold a disproportionate
influence in an adjudication process, maybe the problem is with big tech
holding disproportionate influence at W3C (something we could have
predicted long ago), not with the objection process per se?

4. While it is natural to be frustrated at the actions of others, what we
can control is our own actions. Have we looked at what we could do in
future situations to avoid this? For example, poll important constituencies
that might object, before the final comment period? Did we have any clue
that objections would arise, and on what basis?


On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 8:30 PM Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> About a decade ago, the OASIS Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI)
> technical committee sent a candidate specification for its OASIS-wide
> approval vote and sufficient numbers of members voted against it that the
> specification was not ratified.  (Among those lobbying against it was Tim
> Berners-Lee.)  Most of these members did not participate in the chartered
> working group because they opposed the effort.  They certainly did not plan
> to implement it.  But their objections were listened to and acted upon.
> Some would argue that the Internet and Web are better for it.  I relate
> this incident because it is an example of the checks and balances built
> into the system working and it may also help inform the current dialog
> about the W3C approval process.
>
> Below, Manu suggests that objections be ignored or discounted when an
> objector didn’t participate in the working group.  Yet, if that were the
> case in the OASIS process, almost all XRI objections would have been
> ignored, silencing voices with legitimate criticisms.  This should serve as
> a cautionary tale.
>
> I would be very concerned with instituting procedures where those with
> legitimate objections to a spec are expected to silence themselves during
> any phase of the discussion.  If objectors are expected to recurse
> themselves because they have an opinion, a similarly valid a case could be
> made for those who approved the spec to also recuse themselves because they
> have an opinion.  Having an opinion, positive or negative, does not
> constitute a conflict of interest.  In truth, for the health of the W3c, we
> want all voices to be heard during all phases of the process so an informed
> discussion can occur.
>
> This is much bigger than just the DID spec.  The ends do not justify the
> means.
>
> “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
> to say it.”
> ― S.G. Tallentyre
>
>                                 -- Mike
>
> P.S.  It seems to be that our goal for DIDs should actually be to win over
> Google, Apple, and Mozilla to supporting the spec - possibly tightened in
> ways to address their objections.  Adoption will be much swifter and
> support more ubiquitous with them on board.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2021 11:28 PM
> To: W3C DID Working Group <public-did-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: W3C Formal Objections: When Powerful Corporations Play Both
> Sides
>
> On 10/11/21 2:03 AM, Christopher Allen wrote:
> > As a “invited expert” I have insufficient privileges to read your email.
> >
> > Is there another way to view it?
>
> Copied below in full... just keep in mind that if you respond on this
> mailing list, the AC won't see it... and we really need them to see the
> responses. I'm fairly certain the AC will get cranky if we forward email
> from non-AC members on to the AC. I don't know how to close that
> communication gap -- any ideas from anyone else in the WG?
>
> --------------------
> W3C Formal Objections: When Powerful Corporations Play Both Sides
>
> Fellow W3C Advisory Committee Representatives,
>
> This is an open letter to each of you highlighting deep concerns with the
> new Director-free approach[1] to processing Formal Objections. Namely, the
> new process provides advantages to objectors that also sit on the same W3C
> Council that determines the outcome of formal objections. That is, per the
> new process, Google, Apple, and Mozilla get to object to a new standard for
> the Web and then could provide input on determining whether or not to
> uphold their own objection. The concern is not theoretical, it is occurring
> as you read this letter.
>
> For those of you that might not be aware, here is a summary of the current
> state of play:
>
> The W3C Decentralized Identifier (DID) Working Group[2] had consensus[3]
> to propose publication of DID Core 1.0[4] as a W3C Proposed Recommendation.
> There were 40 W3C Member companies that agreed to publication of DID Core
> 1.0 as a W3C Recommendation and there were 3 companies that objected:
> Google, Apple, and Mozilla. The W3C Team stepped in to mediate a
> discussion[6] that did not resolve the formal objections.
>
> The acting W3C Director then decided to request feedback from the W3C
> Council[7], which is composed of the W3C Advisory Board and the W3C
> Technical Architecture Group, and take the new W3C Council Formal Objection
> resolution process for a spin. The Decentralized Identifier Working Group
> is deeply frustrated by this recent turn of events, but understands that
> someone needs to be the first through this new process.
>
> There are four aspects of how this is playing out that are deeply
> concerning:
>
> 1. The objectors (Google, Apple, and Mozilla), and the proponents (over 40
> companies) collectively hold 7 out of the 21 seats on the W3C Council.
> This enables 1/3rd of the W3C Council who are taking a position on the
> formal objection to engage in what is supposed to be an impartial process.
>
> 2. The new W3C Council Formal Objection Process gently suggests that
> individuals that might have a conflict of interest can voluntarily recuse
> themselves; the decision is left up to the individual. Apple has raised a
> formal objection and sits on both the W3C AB and W3C TAG; are both
> individuals expected to recuse themselves? I hope the answer to this
> question is "Yes, because the formal objection is on behalf of Apple and
> therefore, there is a conflict of interest." The same recusal issue applies
> to Google's representatives.
>
> 3. The W3C Team, who have a long and positive track record of striking the
> right balance when providing input into these sorts of decisions, have been
> stripped of any decision making authority.
>
> 4. Lastly, Google, Apple, and Mozilla made no attempt to bring their
> formal objections to the Decentralized Identifier Working Group since the
> Working Group started, and then during the first transition to Candidate
> Recommendation and then during the second transition to Candidate
> Recommendation. The first time the group heard of these objections during
> its two-year charter was in the days before the poll closed to approve DID
> Core
> 1.0 as a W3C Recommendation.
>
> Given these concerns, the W3C Advisory Committee should provide some
> guidance to this new formal objection process, as all of us will experience
> what is going on now at some point if we don't resolve these issues as a
> community.
>
> There are courses of action that we can take to resolve these concerns:
>
> 1. Make communicating with the W3C Council regarding the formal objection
> strictly off-limits outside of the formal objection process (public
> communication is allowed, non-public communication is disallowed).
> Violating this hard line should result in removal from the W3C TAG or W3C
> AB because it is an egregious violation of trust in our elected
> representatives.
>
> 2. Make recusal from the W3C Council decision mandatory for any individual
> that is associated on either side of the formal objection.
>
> 3. Ensure that the W3C Staff are a substantive part of the formal
> objection process, and not relegated to the sidelines as they seem to be in
> the new W3C Council-based process. They are a check and balance that we
> should be depending on as a community.
>
> 4. Strike down formal objections that made no attempt to engage with the
> Working Group. Allowing formal objections in the 11th hour accomplishes
> nothing other than stress, distrust, and drama -- three things we don't
> need more of at W3C. The W3C Process should be predictable, trustworthy,
> and boring.
>
> I plan to bring all of this up during our upcoming W3C Advisory Committee
> meeting. We have some work to do if we want to ensure a smooth transition
> to handling Formal Objections via the W3C Council.
>
> -- manu
>
> [1]https://www.w3.org/2021/05/W3C_Council_Guide.html
> [2]https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/
> [3]
> https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2021-07-20-did#resolution1
> [4]https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/
> [5]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/did-core-pr/results
> [6]https://www.w3.org/2021/09/21-did10-minutes.html
> [7]https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2021-10-05-did#section2
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>
>
>