Re: W3C action/response to the BLM Movement

Wendy,

I agree with you that the key question is whether a statement of the 
form "W3C supports Black Lives Matters" is more similar to S5 or S6.

That may be a judgement call.

The examples given for S5 essentially say that W3C may make statements 
of the form W3C supports: (1) that everyone be able to access the net, 
or (2) accessibility, or (3) internationalization because these are 
established consortium values.

The examples given for S6 essentially say that W3C cannot make 
statements related to (1) SOPA, (2) net neutrality, (3) country closures 
of the net, (4) party preference, or (5) abortion rights because they 
are political issues.

My interpretation was that if we could not even express an opinion on a 
topic close to the web (e.g. country closures of the net), then arguing 
that BLM is S5 rather than S6 is a tough case to make.

But that is only one opinion (mine).

Would you like to come to the next Advisory Board meeting (18 June) to 
either argue that we should change the overall policy or to argue that 
BLM fits into category S5?

Jeff

On 6/4/2020 9:55 PM, Reid, Wendy wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Thank you for the quick reply. I too hope we can come up with some 
> actionable items for the organization. I don’t expect an answer 
> tonight, but in reading over the policy in [1] I do not see anything 
> that appears to contravene with the W3C agreeing with and supporting 
> the position of Black Lives Matter.
>
> For anyone who doesn’t want to read the entire thing, I believe these 
> are the salient points:
>
> Public positions on "political" (S5, S6) issues may be made with any 
> of the first two levels of association (A1, A2) without consultation 
> with the Membership or the Advisory Board
>
> Public positions on political issues that reflect established W3C 
> values (S5) may be made at any level of association.
>
> Rationale: These are not new policies but application of existing 
> values and principles to policy subjects, and hence do not require 
> approval.
>
> Public positions on partisan issues (S6) have generally been avoided 
> by W3C (with A3, A4, or A5), since W3C is a Member organization and 
> Members have different points of view about certain partisan policy 
> issues. However, W3C Staff finds some of these limits incredibly 
> frustrating. Here we are discussing issues that may be clear in the 
> minds of W3C staff, and the fact that their “employer” – W3C - says 
> nothing is negative for morale. It would be interesting to get the 
> AB’s views if there were a way to have W3C voice its point of view on 
> positions of this type.
>
> It is good to see that individuals are permitted to comment as 
> themselves and staff, but on a matter like this, I think it sends the 
> wrong message for the organization not to comment. But I only quickly 
> perused the document, so clarification would be helpful!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wendy
>
> *From: *Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 8:08 PM
> *To: *"Reid, Wendy" <wendy.reid@rakuten.com>, "public-idcg@w3.org" 
> <public-idcg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: W3C action/response to the BLM Movement
>
> Thanks, Wendy.
>
> Several years ago, the Team worked with the Advisory Board to 
> establish policies about W3C making public statements [1]. Based on 
> this policy, it is not in our scope to make a statement about Black 
> Lives Matter, until/unless we change [1].
>
> W3C does support the work of IDCG and strives to improve inclusion and 
> diversity.  I endorse your renewed call for additional action in this 
> area.  I hope to be able to make this call.  June is the time for my 
> annual blog report on Diversity at W3C [2], and so this discussion is 
> very timely for me.
>
> Jeff
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/01/PSGMatrix
>
> [2] https://www.w3.org/blog/tags/inclusion/
>
> On 6/4/2020 7:03 PM, Reid, Wendy wrote:
>
>     Dear Colleagues,
>
>     I hope everyone has been keeping well and safe during these times.
>     I wanted to reach out to this group as I believe we need to do
>     something to address the W3C’s lack of diversity and inclusion in
>     2020, a time where we see protests for the rights of black people
>     take over not just the United States and Canada, but many other
>     places as well.
>
>     The web is a platform for many great things, including the
>     organizing for many of these protests and movements, but it is
>     also where world leaders make threats and groups gather to profess
>     hate. As an organization we’ve built specifications around the
>     ideas of inclusivity, security, and privacy, but the faces in the
>     rooms where these discussions are held still do not reflect the
>     makeup of the world around us. Tech, and by extension the W3C, is
>     notoriously male and white.
>
>     I notice that W3C has not yet made a public statement about their
>     support for the Black Lives Matter movement, and I wanted to come
>     here because if/when that happens, the logical request will be for
>     what actions is W3C intending to make to address our lack of
>     diversity.
>
>     So I raise the question here first, because I think everyone here
>     is of the mind that we should do something. I do think this should
>     be a sentiment and action that comes from W3M, the AB, AC, and the
>     members as a whole, but I hope we can come up with a starting
>     point for everyone to build off of.
>
>     What should W3C do about the lack of diversity in our working
>     groups and F2F meetings?
>
>     How can we as an organization support community members who are
>     limited in participation by factors like economics, family
>     situation, geography?
>
>     What actions should we take to recruit more members from diverse
>     backgrounds and retain them once they are here?
>
>     I propose we have a call soon to discuss these matters, but I will
>     leave that judgement to the chairs. Thank you for your consideration.
>
>     Sincerely,
>
>     Wendy Reid
>
>     Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
>