goals/aims/priorities - see if we can't agree

[bkardell]

In my post I proposed that we have a few issues that suck and that there is a potential for a nice solution which has some synergy in addressing all of them - CG++. This led to some discussion on twitter about what the goals are, what I meant and so on. Creating this issue for meaningful discussion over 140 chars.

Essentially, CGs today's aren't really part of a standards body, they are more an infrastructure (a pretty nice one at that) provided by one. Let's extend that idea to create a virtual org (not the original intent of a CG) like guilds aimed at focusing our collective bargaining power. These would unify purpose, and by way of collecting money for participation (in what form/for what purpose is up to the particular guild) we show unity of purpose and serious demand. Obviously, there are those of us who believe that W3C needs reforms and that to do this requires developera have a seat at the table and representation (I am one). Once established, a guild which could fund the membership fee (assuming one set out with that aim, and could) seems like it should be able to join, just like any other non-profit or individuals could today - except that there is currently a restriction that it must be a legal entity, so I suggest the removal of that restriction as well.

[tobie]

Some thoughts:

1. Setting up a legal entity in Switzerland would take me a couple of hours and would cost nothing:

   Associations with a political, religious, scientific, cultural, charitable, social or other non-commercial purpose acquire legal personality as soon as their intention to exist as a corporate body is apparent from their articles of association
   The articles of association must be done in writing and indicate the objects of the association, its resources and its organisation. —Swiss Civil Code, Art. 60.

   Further more, in the US, a non profit status (e.g. 501(c)(6) or similar) is necessary for donations to be tax exempt. So such a legal status would be pretty important to get. Time invested in setting up a foundation is probably a lot smaller than making modifications to the W3C process document and would incentivize donations.

2. I actually don't think the CG's infrastructure is a pretty nice one. I find it confusing and developer hostile. It's centered around mailing lists, while what we want is to center it around GitHub/Git.

3. W3C membership fees are high, even for non-profits ($ 2,250 for the first two years, $7,900 after that). To put this in context, two years of membership fees at the W3C is what enabled @yoavweiss to implement the <picture> element in Blink and WebKit. I know where I'd want my money to go.

4. The purpose of having a collective entity is to gather funds, host projects, tools, lobby, etc., with the minimum infrastructure necessary to avoid unnecessary costs. Replicating this on a per CG basis would be wasteful.

5. Your solution tackles issues of developer representation within the W3C. I'm not interested in that as much as I am interested in giving developers a voice within the Open Web Platform as a whole. This includes other standard bodies (WHATWG, Ecma, Khronos, IETF), but also, implementors. Ideally, an organization like W3C could be the host of such an endeavor. Unfortunately, its business model based on membership fees and its relatively high operation cost makes that impossible. That's why I suggest building this a separate entity.

[yoavweiss]

what we want is to center it around GitHub/Git

👍

Your solution tackles issues of developer representation within the W3C. I'm not interested in that as much as I am interested in giving developers a voice within the Open Web Platform as a whole. This includes other standard bodies (WHATWG, Ecma, Khronos, IETF), but also, implementors.

👍

I think we need to define what "giving a voice" means.The right to vote? The right to be heard in technical discussions?

My definition would be "the right to get shit they care about shipped in browsers"

[tobie]

I think we need to define what "giving a voice" means.The right to vote? The right to be heard in technical discussions?

My definition would be "the right to get shit they care about shipped in browsers"

That's a good enough working definition for me.

[bkardell]

Addressing @tobie's points...

1. I feel like it is a higher bar than you think it is, having tried once and talked to some lawyers. If you can actually do this, my question is - what are you waiting for? Do it, that's one less barrier. WRT non-profit my approach, I think actually side-steps that nicely. Money is paid directly to people for the purpose, there is no middle org which could be taxed. Employees of a non-profit pay taxes from their salary, it's the entity collecting money that doesn't have to pay. But, of course, I agree, if we have non-profits that's great... We do already have some btw, the point is that I think we need more - that dont represent browsers or particular projects.
2. CGs offer a ML, which is handy, but you don't have to use it. public-nextweb is quiet as a mouse because it is largely a coordination group, and what discussion did take place there before now happens on specifiction (and hopefully will be even more expanded by chapters). They offer more too, and that's what's makes them nice.
3. I agree with you, however, so far as I can see - non-profits actually only pay the lower rate in practice and that's what I've proposed. $2,250 annually is "a lot" but it's not an insane amount to collect if part of the goal of your particular 'guild' is to change membership (see points 4/5)
4. Except that github and the underpinning tech of CGs already provide a lot of that shared stuff, so it's not so high. I take it your proposal is 'one world-wide group' which has massive bargaining power and can be ultra-efficient. I honestly don't think that will work OR be efficient. People will disagree. For example, some of us think it is important (see point 5) to affect change in W3C, some don't. Having a handful of orgs allows people to organize on what they are passionate about, and they can still work together on collaborative ideas they agree on. I think in some ways, this actually gives you more bargaining power. I take your point that this is a shift of funds, but tell me how my proposal precludes what you are saying? It doesn't. If you can really get people to agree to one giant group, they'll join that.
5. Yes, it does and I want to note a few very important things:

• You said

  Your solution tackles issues of developer representation within the W3C. I'm not interested in that as much as I am interested in giving developers a voice within the Open Web Platform as a whole. This includes other standard bodies (WHATWG, Ecma, Khronos, IETF), but also, implementors.

Note your use of the word "as much". Me too. We have total agreement if I read your words correctly. But....But.... that doesn't mean I think it is unimportant or shouldn't be considered. Also note that CGs (and this) would provide shared infrastructure not be a part of the standards body - WHATWG has a CG.

All I am really trying to do is propose how we get some necessary pieces that I think set all the foundational bits in place that we'd need to solve most of the problems... Actually solving them once we have it is a second (and larger) task :)

[tobie]

If you can actually do this, my question is - what are you waiting for?

You can't create such a legal entity in Switzerland by yourself. It's not called association for nothing. :)

WHATWG has a CG.

That's for IP reasons only, and no one seems too happy with the outcome.

That said, it seems we don't agree on much, unfortunately. Not sure where to take it from here.

[bkardell]

@tobie...

You can't create such a legal entity in Switzerland by yourself. It's not called association for nothing. :)

Sign me up bro... as long as it doesn't put me at legal/financial risk, I'm all in.

That said, it seems we don't agree on much, unfortunately. Not sure where to take it from here.

We disagree on precisely one thing as far as I can tell - and it seems insignificant? What am I really missing? You think one world-wide dev group that has to buy infrastructure is the answer? I'll join that too man :) In what I proposed, your one group result is just as distinct a possibility, but you'd get some infrastructure and the ability to do some other things as well. Where's the unresolvable problem where we don't agree on much? Seems like a dark outlook to me.

[tobie]

Seems like a dark outlook to me.

Yeah, sorry. Point by point answers tend to do that to me. :)

Overall, what I'd like to achieve here is to reach some kind of agreement over a basic framework (rough mission statement, vague operational and organizational mode) and then focus immediately on means to provide actual value to the Web platform through short, concrete projects.

I strongly disagree that attempting to change the W3C's process document to give non legal entities the right to purchase a vote at the AC meets the short, and concrete requirements. I also strongly disagree that it would provide actual value to the Web Platform. You've proven yourself over the last couple of TAG elections that outside campaigning was very effective in influencing the way the AC votes. What makes you suddenly doubt this strategy?

With regards to creating a legal entity through a Swiss association, I'd like to first understand what its purpose would be. If its to collect donations, for example, it might not be the best tool for the job, given a sizable chunk of donors would probably come from the US and want tax exemption. (But it might be a good first step while we setup in parallel a US entity.)

Finally, my objection to the CG-based strategy is that it buys us nothing except a mailing list—exactly the tool that I believe alienates devs—, but ties us to a brand—W3C—that is perceived a slow, ineffective, and out of touch by the very people we want to get involved. Helping the W3C change is a noble goal, but a very difficult one. Its key issues are strongly tied to its membership based model which greatly limits its ability to evolve. (The irony of critiquing the W3C's business model while suggesting a similar one for this endeavor is not lost on me. This is something we need to think about more.) This is not to say that driving change within the W3C can't be one of the goals of this thing we're discussing here, it's just that it won't be effective to try and do so until we're effectively channeling Web dev's voice (or at least a chunk of it) and have brought value to the platform through projects.

Hope this clarifies my position (and de-glooms it).

[darobin]

So...

I agree that trying to change the W3C should not be a primary goal of any such organisation. It should not be excluded as a potential thing to do (either through joining or through campaigning) but only when it is found to help with the ultimate goal.

Which leaves open the question of what the ultimate goal is.

Brendan has made noise a few times about the notion of a Web Users' Union of some sort that would empower users to have some form of influence over stewardship of the Web, notably over what's in browsers (since that's of very direct import to them). It's an idea that I really love; but at the same time I really don't see how to make it happen.

Developers, however, strike me as being the best approximation to users that can organise in a roughly coherent manner. I don't think that the traditional idea of a union matches what I have in mind (or would be effective) but some form of gathering would IMHO have an impact.

I think we all agree that developers are currently not very enfranchised as stakeholders in the platform. That's what we need to change. Rather than strikes or boycotts or whatnot, we can provide a framework for developers to help themselves. This can cover:

• Educating and supporting in influencing and creating standards (which will naturally come more from developers as the Extensible Web matures)
• Channelling developer feedback back to instances that can effect change (it's scary how far away from developer need implementers often are, no matter what they claim)
• Coordinate specific, targeted projects that help the platform. This doesn't have to be financially (providing some infrastructure and awareness of a project can sometimes be enough) but it can be. As @tobie says figuring out the best set up for donations might be tricky, but we can sort that out over time and resort to classic crowdfunding in the meantime (as was done for @yoavweiss).
• Bind the community together. A lot can simply happen from getting people to meet up. Holding chapter meetings can bring about change on its own.

I think those make for a good start. We can't decide of the projects in advance, but we can figure out how to organise them (on GH, etc.)

With these goals in mind, I wonder about some names (yeah, we need one):

1. onClique
2. throng.io
3. coterie or coter.io
4. the web unwashed

I think I like 3 best.

[tobie]

With these goals in mind, I wonder about some names (yeah, we need one):

Are you hijacking @bkardell's #1 issue because no one is interested in your #2 bikeshedding special?

Joking aside, have we considered reaching out to the WaSP folks and reviving their project?

[tobie]

@darobin I pretty much agree with all of what you wrote above, btw. My man crush is reaching new heights.

[bkardell]

I also agree with he points above. I'm wondering how it there might be confusion about my comments because of context. I hope it is obvious, but assuming it might not be, that this piece was particularly written around similar observations but in the context of "Webizen" discussions at the w3c which is in the process of realizing the realities of some of what we are saying here. My point with cg++ is really more to w3c - that they are better off investing in efforts that help developers to help ourselves by removing barriers or providing useful infrastructure rather than attempting to create complex plans to involve developers as a lesser party.

It may be wrong, there are other roads to accomplish, and I don't think this is a primary priority of this group, but its good to frame some conversation and get people talking.

[stuartpb]

So what's happened with this, especially considering the rise of stuff like WG repos in https://github.com/w3c?

[stuartpb]

Since this issue was published, Specifiction has been used as the ground floor for the WICG.