Re: Request for consensus to add text in the BLM statement

I agree with you both. I would rather see our original statement with no
additions.
It will be interesting and very helpful to hear what Kim Crayton has to say.
Rhian


On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 13:35, Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Without my chair hat on:
>
> I find that in fact I do concur with Marisa: I don’t think we have to say
> anything about violence. I realize it does not satisfy the objection, but
> like Marisa and probably others, I didn’t agree with the objection in the
> first place.
>
> Coralie
>
> > On 27 Aug 2020, at 00:35 , Marisa DeMeglio <marisa.demeglio@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > This is great, thanks for summarizing where we’re at.
> >
> > I don’t think the alternative sentence satisfies the objection. My
> thinking in suggesting that was that it’s the only context I could see a
> comment about violence being relevant to our statement. But really, I would
> rather see our original statement with no additions. I don’t think we have
> to say anything about violence. I know this also does not satisfy the
> objection, but, well, I disagree with the rationale of the objection in the
> first place.
> >
> > I would be happy to hear what Kim Crayton has to say, even if it takes a
> week.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Marisa
> >
> >> On Aug 26, 2020, at 13:56, Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Everyone,
> >>
> >> We are close to achieving our goal of having W3C publish a statement in
> support of BLM; we just need to find a way to overcome this last challenge.
> >>
> >> The objector states they will withdraw their Formal Objection to the
> proposed statement if the following sentence is incorporated into paragraph
> 6:
> >>
> >>  "As an organization, W3C believes that Black Lives Matter.
> >>  /+We unequivocally stand against racism, injustice, and violence.+/
> >>  We also stand in support of our Indigenous colleagues, colleagues
> >>  of color, LGBTQI+ colleagues, and colleagues with disabilities.
> >>
> >> An alternative version of the sentence was then proposed:
> >>
> >> "As an organization, W3C believes that Black Lives Matter.
> >>  /+We unequivocally stand against racism, injustice, and violence
> against marginalized communities.+/
> >>  We also stand in support of our Indigenous colleagues...
> >>
> >> We are now at a point where we need to decide which version of the
> sentence we want to adopt, and there are a few things we need to consider
> along the way:
> >>
> >> 1. Will the person who made the formal objection accept the alternative
> version of the sentence?
> >>
> >>> Quoting from the objector's statement:
> >>>
> >>>  "I believe it is important to clearly state what we _do_ and _do not_
> >>>  support as W3C organization. We support true equality, we support any
> >>>  lawful action that aims to fight injustice, but we do not condone
> >>>  violence or destruction of property. In numerous cases, the peaceful
> >>>  protests for right social cause were hijacked by radical extremists,
> >>>  and their violent actions [that clearly deviate from the established
> >>>  social norms and the rule of law] only diminish the importance of
> >>>  "Black Lives Matter" message. I do not believe that being vocal about
> >>>  the rightful cause while being silent about radical violations of
> >>>  social norms sends the right message - we all know too well that
> >>>  silence is approval. We do not tolerate any behaviors that violate
> >>>  our own social norms, we openly speak against any violations of the
> >>>  W3C Code of Conduct - I do not see why our stance on the larger
> >>>  social issue should be any different.
> >>>
> >>>  "Our stated position should clearly communicate the fact that while
> >>>  we do support all marginalized and underrepresented communities, and
> >>>  we support their fight for true equality, we do not condone any
> >>>  violence or unlawful actions!"
> >>
> >> 2. If we choose to adopt the alternative version of the sentence, is
> the risk that the Director may uphold the formal objection one worth taking?
> >>
> >> If we choose not to accept the original sentence and instead choose the
> alternative version, and the objector refuses to remove their objection,
> the Director will be obliged to consider the formal objection when deciding
> whether to approve publication of the statement (or not).
> >>
> >> 3. Do we want to ask the Director for a delay?
> >>
> >> The Director is expecting to review the statement, the responses from
> the AC, and (if relevant) the formal objection after the time for our
> response has passed (on 28 August).
> >>
> >> Kim Crayton has generously offered to review the sentence and offer us
> guidance on the wording to use, but unfortunately cannot do this until next
> week. It is also possible that the advice we receive means we still need to
> answer questions 1 and 2 (noted above).
> >>
> >> We also received comments from the AC suggesting that publication of
> the statement was already too late, so a delay may validate those comments.
> >>
> >> Our most certain route to W3C publishing this statement is to accept
> the original version of the sentence, and to ask the Director for his
> consent without worrying about the formal objection.
> >>
> >> We all want to do the right thing, and to say the right words, and we
> have worked hard to produce a statement that received a positive amount of
> support from W3C members.
> >>
> >> Our opportunity to respond to Ralph ends tomorrow (28 August).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Léonie.
> >>
> >> On 20/08/2020 18:47, Ralph Swick wrote:
> >>> IDCG Participants,
> >>> As you know, the W3C Process allows for formal objections to a group
> decision.  A formal objection is a request to the W3C Director to consider
> when evaluating the related decision.
> >>> During the W3C Member review of the proposed W3C Statement on Black
> Lives Matter a formal objection was raised.  I have been delegated to try
> to find a consensus resolution to this formal objection on behalf
> >>> of the W3C Director.
> >>> I share with you part of the objector's statement and following that a
> change (addition) to the text of the BLM statement. The objector has
> confirmed that this would resolve the objection to their satisfaction.
> >>> Quoting from the objector's statement:
> >>> "I believe it is important to clearly state what we _do_ and _do not_
> >>> support as W3C organization. We support true equality, we support any
> >>> lawful action that aims to fight injustice, but we do not condone
> >>> violence or destruction of property. In numerous cases, the peaceful
> >>> protests for right social cause were hijacked by radical extremists,
> >>> and their violent actions [that clearly deviate from the established
> >>> social norms and the rule of law] only diminish the importance of
> >>> "Black Lives Matter" message. I do not believe that being vocal about
> >>> the rightful cause while being silent about radical violations of
> >>> social norms sends the right message - we all know too well that
> >>> silence is approval. We do not tolerate any behaviors that violate
> >>> our own social norms, we openly speak against any violations of the
> >>> W3C Code of Conduct - I do not see why our stance on the larger
> >>> social issue should be any different.
> >>> "Our stated position should clearly communicate the fact that while
> >>> we do support all marginalized and underrepresented communities, and
> >>> we support their fight for true equality, we do not condone any
> >>> violence or unlawful actions!"
> >>> The objector states they will withdraw their Formal Objection to the
> proposed statement if the following sentence is incorporated into paragraph
> 6:
> >>>  "As an organization, W3C believes that Black Lives Matter.
> >>>  /+We unequivocally stand against racism, injustice, and violence.+/
> >>>  We also stand in support of our Indigenous colleagues, colleagues
> >>>  of color, LGBTQI+ colleagues, and colleagues with disabilities.
> >>> I solicit your view on this change, preferably no later than 27 August.
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Ralph Swick, W3C
> >>
> >> --
> >> Director @TetraLogical
> >> https://tetralogical.com
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Coralie Mercier  -  W3C Marketing & Communications -  https://www.w3.org
> mailto:coralie@w3.org +337 810 795 22 https://www.w3.org/People/Coralie/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>