Volunteers for Chair?

Hi All,

It's been reported to me that the group needs to have a chair-person,
whilst i note, i've seen other groups without one.  I think this is an
administrative requirement..

There's a bit to update the group about, write a post about..  or perhaps a
few posts...  but i'd like to step-down as chair, which means there needs
to be a replacement.

This doesn't mean that I'm unsupportive of efforts to bring about
technological infrastructure that may reasonably support a variety of, what
I'd consider to be universal ideals..  Yet, the conclusion that I've come
to, again, overall is that i' feeling overwhelmingly defeated.

I'm not presently sure how to best articulate, circumstances,
deliberations, considerations & implications; that are complex, and in some
areas of most importance, have serious privacy implications; whilst others,
pertain to confidences, and behaving honourably is important to me.

I started work on what i later called 'human centric' ecosystems, in 2000,
due to a relatives work on how synaptic nerve-cells work which led him to
be awarded a nobel prize, i was inspired by that work, alongside other
factors - and went about designing an ecosystem for online data storage,
that was based upon people owning their own data, and sharing content by
links.  There were many facets involved in these first 'crescent network' /
iBank designs, i was very young, troubled, naive & overall, just starting
out, after several years in the ICT sector as a young person..  These works
developed through an initial attempt, that led to an involvement with
'video on demand' and even 'streaming games' (soon thereafter); alongside
wifi, and all sorts of other things; but, to characterise a fundamental
dispute, there was opposing ideas; whilst i wanted fairness, means to
empower people, the opposite point of view was to use the opportunity to
manipulatively aggregate & seek to 'own it all', as a super aggregator...
 this was a problem, that i've been struggling to ensure that at least
alternatives exist to, since then.  It appears the consequence of various
complex issues now leads to a thin-client 'wallet' based model being
monopolistically deployed, and, i don't understand how to support access to
justice, means for people to store & be able to use in a court of law, even
if in poverty, electronic evidence pertaining to their lives to lawful
remedy, peacefully and in a timely manner; as does in-turn also, impact our
capacity to support STEM, fair-trading, electronic agreements where both
parties define terms rather than asymmetrical agreements that may vary
whenever; and beyond the many complex social implications, there are also
significant issues pertaining to engineering systems to better support
human consciousness via our technological infrastructure that's
increasingly acting as a prosthetic dependency upon life, the lives of
people, etc.

the outcome is also, that whilst i feel defeated - those who may be
considered to have 'won', also do so in an ecosystem that poorly supports
accountability, provenance tracking & personal responsibility.  Whilst
seemingly good for some to 'make money' or indeed others, to merely get
more promotions - it seems, such beneficiaries can always claim they've
always been doing it, and so long as they've got the resources from the
past wins, it doesn't really matter - whilst seeking to maintain an
honourable approach, provide means to deliver outcomes where people can own
the software (licensing, patent-pool considerations, etc) pertaining to
their own thoughtware - well - that's work that's done in poverty, without
funding or safety and the outcome of these fundamental requirements means
that these foundations need to be ownable, by the 'data subject',
themselves...  their own thoughtware...  their own 'api', defined by them -
without undue interference or coercion.

means, in-turn, to build the test apparatus needed to better understand
consciousness..  but how can that be done safely, given the environmentals
generally..  I really don't know.

Indeed, whether its called 'human centric', which i termed due to needing
to have a condition in the earlier W3C work to ensure modalities of
outcomes were broader than 'platform owned' or 'corporation centric' or
indeed also, government centric - as the intellectual property for natural
persons, wasn't supported - so, that's why a new term was needed, and i
thought about it; notes can be found by searching the lists - noting, i've
just gone to the link, it appears to have changed..  anyhow.  As noted,
feeling defeated and due also to the code of conduct, I don't think
discussion about some of the related issues can be discussed - regardless
of science or reality...

two last notes.

with respect to protecting the human rights & interests of children and
in-turn also, identity development - which is a term pertaining to
psychology / social sciences.  I understand efforts are being made to apply
the wallet to all things internet.  i don't think itll deliver what they
say it'll fix, but, if that's not the point of doing it - i probably can't
talk about it anyway.

a straight forward solution is to use RDF on domains or even posts, to
provide information about whether the content is suitable for children; ie:
ratings. and then, have a browser plugin or OS tool that looks for these
files, and then makes decisions based on what it says.  this means ontology
needs to be done for it, and somme other tooling - fairly straight forward,
should probably be done by schemaorg | could also be done in a way that
means it associates to particular posts in a social media system, rather
than just the high-level domain / URL.

also; there's a bunch of stuff that i don't particularly want to see as an
adult, therefore, restricting this approach to merely considering the
interests of children as a child focused outcome; may in-fact, diminish the
ability for the outcome to do so - for children.   Therefore, i considered
the notion of terming any such initiative a personalisation solution
'myweb', which therein has a particularly attentive focus upon delivering
outcomes to address the needs of young people.   The outcome would require
websites to install the file and/or ontological supports, much like
accessibility projects.

soe notes about it - still poorly drafted (imho)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1Afo-bja_jksBEynHyG7nBDz71TAPOZYkagdoh4e6A/edit


AND finally,  I apologise for not having been able to achieve more since i
instigated the creation of the group.  There has been alot of work in the
background, i'll go into it at some later stage.  But, should others have a
belief in the notion called 'human centric' AI, Internet, etc..  then -
finding someone willing to take on the role of Chair, would be very much
welcomed and i'll do my best to support it, but that's not delivering much
atm.  so, I guess, this is an honourable result..

I have managed to obtain the 2nd hand parts to build a workstation that is
suitable for local LLM related AI work.  I'm hopeful that i'll be able to
build an environment that'll be good for art, RD&D, etc.

but this is different, to seeking to...  well.  I'm very troubled about the
implications associated to some of my earlier works and the direction the
world is going in generally, the implications, etc.  as i'm defeated, it
appears the higher-level consensus must be, that i'm wrong; otherwise, why
would the resources go into the stuff thats troubling, rather than
solutions for tooling to help deliver SDGs and do all the good things -
unless, the so called 'promoter' of such sorts of solutions, is wrong.

But thankyou for your time.  It's been a difficult ~12 years or so of W3C
works..  i'll write about my personal deliberations otherwise, somewhere
else.  I am happy to help any incoming chair learn more about the stuff
they may not know re: w3c, etc.  where i can help..

I'll write about my view of what i intended re: human centric / human
centric ai, sometime soon.  but, i do worry, that work with the best of
intention - can seemingly be perverted - its like, inventing a hammer, then
seeing it go to market as a new weapon, rather than something that's really
helpful, when seeking to build homes...  notwithstanding the moral hazard
with oversimplifications...

🙏

Timo.