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

Tom,

As CCG co-chair, I have invited Harry to present his concerns to our group
and have a discussion on multiple occasions. I have never received even a
courtesy response or acknowledgement. This is not the kind of behavior I
see from someone who is genuinely interested in having a productive dialog
to have their concerns addressed.

Regards,

-Heather Vescent
CCG Co-Chair Hat

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 7:19 PM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
Heather Vescent <http://www.heathervescent.com/>
Co-Chair, Credentials Community Group @W3C
<https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/>
President, The Purple Tornado, Inc <https://thepurpletornado.com/>
Author, The Secret of Spies <https://amzn.to/2GfJpXH>
Author, The Cyber Attack Survival Manual
<https://www.amazon.com/Cyber-Attack-Survival-Manual-Apocalypse/dp/1681886545/>
Author, A Comprehensive Guide to Self Sovereign Identity
<https://ssiscoop.com/>

@heathervescent <https://twitter.com/heathervescent> | Film Futures
<https://vimeo.com/heathervescent> | Medium
<https://medium.com/@heathervescent/> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/heathervescent/> | Future of Security Updates
<https://app.convertkit.com/landing_pages/325779/>