- From: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 14:49:54 -0500
- To: public-pwe@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1AC1DDA8-4EC7-453D-B9B1-3613E669E0AE@w3.org>
I received the following reply after forwarding the initial message and am forwarding this anonymously as requested: > There is conflict and there is conflict. > > This email is about misunderstandings that happen. > > Sometimes it is that and sometimes it is power imbalance and/or rights violations. > > They need to be parsed so misunderstandings get addressed fairly to both parties and the more serious complaints have different pathways and protections. -Ralph > On Nov 20, 2025, at 12:54, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org> 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. >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2025 19:50:05 UTC