Re: Concerns with Accessibe joining W3C

wow, thanks for this John.
I admit though it generates a question.
Has anyone ever surveyed what  the general public, or even members believe 
the role of the w3c to be?
I ask because there are so many environments where the name gets invoked, 
so  many ways rules are used that I imagine there is confusion about the 
things you note here.
as a reporter, I have come across the w3c described as the Internet police 
more than once.
Thoughts on image and perception?
Karen



On Fri, 28 May 2021, John Foliot wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> +1 to Patrick Lauke. Am I the only one struck by the (it's more than just)
> irony of a group that ostensibly promotes inclusion of all kinds, actively
> discussing excluding a company from W3C participation? (And, a quick check
> at https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List#xA confirms they are indeed
> members already.)
>
> I get it. This company has a well deserved reputation of activity that many
> of us find... troubling. I too have signed Karl's Overlay Factsheet, and
> I've publicly pointed at this company as being untruthful and snake-oil
> salesmen (using those exact words). I'm not a fan of their technology
> "solution" as it adds as much grief as it claims to remove.
>
> But it's critical to remember that the W3C is a member-funder,
> international standards organization - and a consortium that does more than
> just work on standards for digital accessibility. (The member-funded part
> is critical - it costs $$ to keep the lights on, and that money has to come
> from somewhere.) The W3C has members from around the world, of all forms of
> political stripes and business models, and it's important to note that a
> LOT of entities join the W3C with little active participation in specific
> activities. Their reasons for joining the W3C are as varied as the members
> themselves. Additionally, the W3C has absolutely no power to *force* member
> companies to follow or adopt W3C standards (because otherwise, Apple would
> support @longdesc in their tooling stack - for example...) Finally, there
> are valuable Accessibility advocates (warriors) producing great digital
> accessibility work today that are NOT members of the W3C for reasons that
> may or may-not have anything to do with "accessibility" (WebAIM, FUNKA).
> W3C membership is NOT a badge that separates "us" from "them".
>
> The consortium is NOT a members-only country club, it's NOT a
> by-invitation-only collection of monoculture businesses, advocates, and
> other stakeholders (EDU, government, etc.), and as disappointing it may be
> to see a company that many of us have serious reservations about actively
> seeking to participate at the W3C, I for one would fight tooth and nail to
> ensure their right to do so remained in place. It may turn out positively,
> it may turn out negatively, but frankly I'm offended that some would even
> contemplate actively slamming the door in their face simply because they
> don't see things the way *we* see them.
>
> IMHO, it's the antithesis of inclusion.
>
> JF
>
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 4:52 PM Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Karen,
>>
>> The Code document includes some of that information directly and links to
>> other:
>>
>> * Section 4: Reporting Violations and Supporting the Code
>>         https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/#Reporting
>>
>> * "Procedures" in Positive Work Environment Home Page
>>         https://www.w3.org/Consortium/pwe/
>>
>> Best,
>> ~Shawn
>>
>>
>> On 27-May-21 3:39 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>>> I can respect your stance.
>>> may I ask how the w3c insures anyone complies with this code of ethics?
>>> By which I mean, is it possible to join, yet engage in the sorts of
>> behavior illustrated by some posts here,  without  anyone the wiser?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Karen,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 27 May 2021, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>>>
>>>> I actually have concerns about this discussion. I'm sure going over the
>> list of current members https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List each of
>> us can find at least one or two current members that don't, in our view,
>> fit our view of a good actor - maybe they are in the cryptocurrency market,
>> or maybe they're tied to a media company heavily invested in embedding DRM
>> schemes into standards, or maybe they're tied to a particular government
>> body that is actively working on the suppression of free speech, or ...
>>>>
>>>> However, under the rules, as long as they behave in accordance with the
>> membership agreement, and follow the code of ethics and professional
>> conduct https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/ (and as long as they pay
>> their membership fees), they are free to join.
>>>>
>>>> P
>>>> --
>>>> Patrick H. Lauke
>>>>
>>>> https: //www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>>>> https: //flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
>>>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> *John Foliot* | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility
>
> "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
> Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
>

Received on Friday, 28 May 2021 17:01:46 UTC