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

There have been plenty of informal objections as well. It seems to be a
common reaction of the committee to attack the objector rather than address
the objection.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00136

thx ..Tom (mobile)

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021, 12:09 PM Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/
>>
>>
>>