Re: Summary of TAG resolutions on Director-Free Process proposals

Chris,

I'm sorry that this offended you.  It was meant to be data, not an 
attack on browser vendors.  Details inline.

Jeff

On 9/15/2019 4:39 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:17 AM Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     ...A frequent feature of these objections is that there is a group
>     of stakeholders at W3C who want to do something that may not be
>     within the orthodoxy of current browser thinking.  It is not
>     unusual for the objections to come from browser vendors.
>
> I would like to explicitly object to the undercurrent of demonization 
> of "browser vendors" that runs through this response.

I gave four examples of objections to charters.  In each of them, there 
were objections from browser vendors.  Btw, I'm not saying that the 
objectors were wrong.  I'm just illustrating what I think is a potential 
issue - with data.

The four examples were:

  * VC.  Google and Microsoft happened to be among the most vocal in
    questioning this WG.
  * Hardware security.  Virginie tried very hard to get browser vendor
    engagement.  When she could not achieve that, there was insufficient
    momentum to continue the work.
  * Semantic web.  Microsoft was very vocal about how this work was not
    appropriate.
  * EME.  Well, the major EME objections came from outside the W3C
    community.  But I believe that the first EME charter had an
    objection from Mozilla.

>     Today - and I expect for the future - individuals from browsers
>     are overrepresented (measured by % of membership) on the TAG.  Of
>     9 non-Director seats, browser vendors have 44% (Samsung, Mozilla,
>     Google, and Apple).   Of elected seats - which will be all seats
>     once we drop appointments - browser vendors have 50% (Mozilla,
>     Google, and Apple).  W3C Membership is quite diverse - nowhere
>     near 44/50% of our members work for browser vendors. In this
>     measure, today's AB is somewhat more diverse than the TAG, but
>     browser representation tends to be high on the AB as well.
>     Overall, I think that is a good thing that we have high browser
>     participation on these senior councils.  But it emphasizes my
>     concern that we need to ensure that someone is accountable to the
>     other communities who are trying to start new work.
>
>  I'm not sure what you are trying to truly state here, other than 
> something to the effect of "browser vendors aren't the only members of 
> the W3C, but appear to be the most engaged, and spend the most effort 
> participating in the TAG."  That seems hardly surprising, since 
> clearly those very same companies are the ones who are, in fact, most 
> engaged in building the shape of the entire web platform.

Indeed.  Elsewhere in my email I also said - "I think this is a good 
thing that we have high browser participation"


>
> ASs for "browser representation tends to be high on the AB as well," I 
> am left with two thoughts - first, if this is offensive

Again, you are confusing "data" with "offense".  I find it not to be 
offensive at all.  See above - "this is a good thing".  I'm only 
providing data.  And then projecting that into the objection resolution 
process.


> then you should be pleased that the effects of STV seem to be clear; 
> it seems to be difficult if not impossible to continue to have 
> representatives from more than two core browser vendors on the AB.  
> Secondly, I again see this as no surprise; the direction of the W3C 
> has been critically important to our business - a business that means 
> we sink incredible amounts of money into providing a platform for the 
> web, as do my colleagues at other browsers.  Should we not be 
> interested in lending our assistance to this?

I agree with you.  You should be lending your assistance to this.  I did 
not say otherwise.


>
> As someone who has worked for multiple browser vendors, I am 
> especially irritated by the insinuation that we don't feel any 
> accountability to other communities who are trying to start new work.

I was not trying to insinuate anything.  I was providing data about 
where objections come from.


>   Indeed, we have spent a tremendous amount of effort trying to 
> improve our own "new work" processes, and ensuring that we are not 
> asking for any more accountability in spending the W3C's resources 
> than we are happily ensuring in our own efforts.
>
> Entirely aside from this issue, I would register again that I have 
> grave concerns on the TAG Appointment Council on principle, disagree 
> strongly with the makeup of it, and I also have considerable concerns 
> about the Objection Decision Council.