- From: Tzviya Siegman <tzviya@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 13:55:13 -0500
- To: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, public-pwe@w3.org
- Message-ID: <73f8359e-00d6-4e0b-8209-f5cd4ad3526c@w3.org>
Thanks, Ralph. We can discuss on Tuesday whether we want to address. On 11/20/2025 12:54 PM, Ralph Swick wrote: > The following email was received at our general mail address. I > forward it here in the event that this group wishes to consider any of > the writer’s comments. > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *[redacted] >> *Subject: **Code of Conduct missing addition* >> *Date: *November 18, 2025 at 20:33:34 EST >> *To: *contact@w3.org >> >> Hey people :) >> >> I loved reading through your amazing code of conduct BUT it felt like >> a nightmare to not read about conflict resolution in a way that >> enables variation, instead of - it felt like for me reading - forcing >> peace upon both parties. Thats why I would love to read something >> like this: >> >> conflict is not a by product - its bad design. >> >> Consideration for point 14 Ode of Conduct. >> >> 3. Code of conduct >> >> 3.14. The right to go separate ways — and the understanding that >> until that time, everything co-created belongs to both sides. >> >> >> Conflict is rarely a sign of “bad people”; it is often a sign of bad >> design: systems that do not allow all voices to move freely toward >> the place where they feel most alive, safe, and true. >> >> >> Sometimes the loudest voices are not “dominating” — >> >> they are signaling that something inside them is not yet free. >> >> >> In a healthy system: >> >> >> * >> >> Everyone is allowed to express experiences of suppression. >> >> * >> >> Anyone may state what they need in order to feel safe. >> >> * >> >> We do not frame this as opposition or sides. >> >> * >> >> We treat conflict as information, not as moral failure. >> >> * >> >> We acknowledge that co-creation generates shared responsibility >> and shared ownership until a clean transition is intentionally >> designed. >> >> >> >> Freedom means multiple interpretations of life may coexist — >> >> and each person or group retains the right to move toward the most >> appealing, most resonant interpretation without being punished for it. >> >> >> Designing for collective well-being means building structures where: >> >> >> * >> >> Divergence is allowed. >> >> * >> >> Separation does not equal betrayal. >> >> * >> >> Expression of pain is welcomed, not pathologized. >> >> * >> >> And co-created value stays in integrity until a fair, mutual >> transition can be made. >> >> >> >> This is not about winning >> >> or being right >> >> or silencing discomfort. >> >> >> It is about designing a social architecture where everyone — >> including those who struggle, shout, or shake — can move from >> constraint into freedom. >> >> > -- Tzviya Siegman Director, Sustainability/Member Relations tzviya@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2025 18:55:14 UTC