We Must Do Better

Sorry to perpetuate the Logo discussion, but I  came across this www-archive message [1]  from Eric Eggert that did not get to AC-Forum.  It contains much to think about, especially:

> The new logo is problematic for me because it can accidentally make 
> people I teach uncomfortable. I often used the W3C logo in my 
> presentations, and if only 1% of people see what I see, that is frankly 
> unacceptable to me.


This resonates with me because W3C has never accepted "only 1% of users are affected" as justification for ignoring problems. The logo rollout feels inconsistent with the values  outlined in W3C's Vision statement [2]  that was central to the justification for a rebranding exercise, and  guidance in the Board-drafted Corporate Purpose [3]. To quote the call to action in the Vision statement,  We must do better.


1. Apply W3C values to all operations, not just technical standards
The Corporate Purpose[3]  states "W3C Inc. will uphold these values as it works towards its strategic goals” , listing diversity, thorough review, and consensus. Yet the logo development appears to have bypassed these principles:

Diversity: Management did not ensure diverse audiences with varying needs could accept the design before committing to it. The logo isn't just external branding, it's used inside the community in presentations, education, advocacy, etc. 
Thorough Review: There's no evidence of wide consultation or even a straw poll asking the AC "can you live with this?"
Consensus: This felt like seeking approval for a fait accompli rather than finding solutions with the weakest objections.

Some may argue consensus principles don't apply to "business” matters like branding, but that contradicts explicit language in [3]:  "W3C Inc. will uphold these values as it works towards its strategic goals"


2. Build solutions as a community, being respectful but frank about problems
[4] argues that we should trust that the team has done a good job and we should have faith in their decisions. But trust must be earned, and deferring to authority is not the "W3C Way”. Finding solutions that create the weakest objections IS how W3C has worked for 30 years. That requires us to be open about the problems we see.

Eric Eggert writes
> I should have spoken up earlier. When I got wind of 
> the logo a few months ago, I saw the problematic parts immediately.

This hit home. When the logo was shared with the AC, I saw the “problematic parts" too. I assumed either others didn't see what I did, or that someone else would initiate the uncomfortable conversations needed to forestall the sorts of public criticism we’ve seen.  Lots of us should have spoken up earlier.


In short, W3C must apply its core values—respect for diverse views, thorough review, and consensus—to everything it produces, not just technical standards. This means soliciting perspectives from across the community, frankly assessing differences of opinions, and seeking outcomes that create the weakest objections, even if a majority don’t share the concerns.

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2025Oct/0029.html
[2] https://www.w3.org/TR/w3c-vision/#op-principles
[3] https://www.w3.org/Member/bod/purpose.html
[4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2025OctDec/0004.html (edited)