Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update solid-vision-mission-values.md #202

Closed
wants to merge 13 commits into from

Conversation

@danwilkinsoncreative
Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 18, 2019

Here is a revised version of the Solid Vision which hopefully expresses the core tenets of Solid in simpler, more accessible terms whilst also making Vision and Mission less compromised by short-term realities. Overall emphasis is still on interoperability but with obvious insinuation to the impact on privacy.

Update solid-vision-mission-values.md
Here is a revised version of the Solid Vision which hopefully expresses the core tenets of Solid in simpler, more accessible terms whilst also making Vision and Mission less compromised by short-term realities. Overall emphasis is still on interoperability but with obvious insinuation to the impact on privacy.
@Vinnl

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jul 18, 2019

Looks good to me, and I love how concise yet clear the mission is!

A few small remarks:

  • It might be because I'm not a native speaker, but is "resting control to users" (second sentence under "What is Solid?") a valid sentence? It reminds me of "wresting something from someone", but that doesn't seem to fit perfectly either.
  • "Solid-compliant applications (...) only get (...) data (...) for a set timeframe." I don't think that's technically true. Once you give an application access to some piece of data, they can copy it wherever and store it for as long as they want/is legally allowed.
  • I'm not sure if it was intentional to remove the link from "Linked Data principles", in the references?
@Mitzi-Laszlo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 19, 2019

@danwilkinsoncreative it's a real luxury to have someone on board who knows how to crystallise the conversations of many into a concise text that explains the Solid. Thank you!

I've added separate commits with descriptions of the reasoning of each suggestion to this pull.

Shall we set up an hour call next week to talk this through line for line?

Considering in the W3C Solid Community Group call last week it was agreed that this is something Tim should approve because it is core to Solid the content of this pull should probably live in the solid/culture repo in the end.

Mitzi-Laszlo added some commits Jul 21, 2019

Freedom, Diversity, and Self-Determination
Self Determination is clearly an important shared value in the Solid community i.e. the idea that the individual should be able to decide what they want and not be squeezed into making a decision by unnecessary bundling of considerations such as keeping  contact details and a wish for privacy. 

Freedom is a very interesting word to replace interoperability because it captures the emotional essence of the drive. Freedom is a loaded word associated very much with US identity ([freedom fries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries)). I'm not sure it captures the value of Solid which is based on making agreements in the form of standards which could be seen as a form of constraint.  It would be helpful to talk about who has freedom from what because the software providers will have less freedom when they have to comply to standards that allow users the freedom to switch between services. In the rebooting the web of trust 2018 conference there were some conversations around the data that sits in-between two people. So, for example, genetic data. Your decisions around your personal data can influence others. In the case of genetic data, your family. So one person having the freedom to decide about their own data may be in conflict with anther persons freedom. How do we capture the idea that people should have the ability to self determine while not infringing on the freedom of others?

I think 'Diversity' in combination with Self-Determination may capture the Solid values more accurately because it delivers on the idea of offering options that the user should be able to pick from.
Fairness rather than Equality
Perhaps it's an idea to refer to "fairness" rather than "equality" because "fairness" is a term regularly used in GDPR and making the direct link will make the overlap in intention more apparent. I also think that fairness captures the idea that some may have different needs from others and perfect equality can be unfair too.
Efficiency
One emotion that I see spoken about frequently in the Solid channels is this idea that rules need to be kept at a minimum. Rules for the sake of rules should be removed and only the bare essential should be in place to deliver on the core mission and values.
Aim of Standard
Rather than referring to Solid directly as a standard or multiple standards (still a debate I hear on the Solid channels) perhaps we should define the aim of the standard  

I'm wondering how we can be clear about technical standard (or standardS?) being involved while still giving room to design other elements of the solution too. 


Section 5 of the latest version of the spec table of contents proposal is around privacy which Ruben mentioned in the W3C Solid Community Group meeting would likely need a legal component. 

 Maybe something that needs clarifying too. I'd be really interested in making sure the explanation of Solid is clear yet gives space to further development.
Vision needs to get closer to the why
While data sharing is a vehicle I think we can get closer to the why. Tried to edge closer by talking about collaboration and knowledge creation for public interest.
Mission is interoperability of web or fairness?
Is the Solid mission pure interoperability or there is a driver of that interoperability that we should be uncovering?
Tried to address @Vinnl comment (below)
"It might be because I'm not a native speaker, but is "resting control to users" (second sentence under "What is Solid?") a valid sentence? It reminds me of "wresting something from someone", but that doesn't seem to fit perfectly either."
Technology neutral description
Tried to rephrase the description of Solid so that it is neutral to techniques used.
@maxidorius

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 22, 2019

The current state of this is very good!

@danwilkinsoncreative

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jul 22, 2019

Hi guys, apologies for the delayed response. Thanks so much for the kind words @Mitzi-Laszlo but also for the builds/comments @Vinnl - all very valid points!

If anything, I hope it's just a good starting point in crafting a 'what' and 'why' that everyone can really get behind whether they're in the Solid community or outside it. I'm also hopeful this is something that can help to further galvanise the wider group - time and energy are such precious commodities and we're so much more effective with them when pushing in the same direction.

@Mitzi-Laszlo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 22, 2019

Feel free to tear up and reject the changes. I've tried to piece them apart so they are easily reversible.

Here's the link for the call on Wednesday at 1400 CEST to talk about this in detail. https://zoom.us/j/8678621195

Looking forward to that, meanwhile can keep chatting and inviting others to share their input.

@Mitzi-Laszlo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 24, 2019

Here are some minutes from the meeting at 1400 CEST on the 24th July with @danwilkinsoncreative @pjworrall and myself.

Minutes

  • focused the conversation on the values as a starting point
  • freedom captures the emotion in a more technology neutral way than interoperability. Self-determination captures the emotional essence of freedom while more accurately describing who is free i.e. the user is free to pick the service.
  • agreed to define the values without using the product or Solid terms so that no definitions are needed as well as allowing for the product terms to change over time
  • Simplicity? Efficiency? Effectiveness? Accessibility? as a concept of making the outcome approachable and functional conversation eventually stumbled upon 'practicality' as the term
  • Equality? Diversity? Fairness? touches upon the idea of practicality for all. Fairness better than equality because it implies that different people may need different things

TL;DR The three values could be: self-determination, practicality, and fairness. Need to set up another call to talk about the exact wording to describe each of those values along with the mission and the vision.

@danwilkinsoncreative @pjworrall feel free to add and modify if you feel something is missing or misrepresented here

There's another call which anyone can join on Friday 26th at 1400 CEST on https://zoom.us/j/8678621195 to elaborate on the wording.

Mitzi-Laszlo added some commits Jul 26, 2019

@pjworrall

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 26, 2019

So on todays meeting we shared a Google Doc and got the following:

Solid Vision, Mission and Values

Approach

To help provide background to how the volunteered Vision, Mission and Values are arrived at and provide a means for constructive input from others for alternatives we are using a message house. The roof is the Vision statement. The columns or walls are the supporting propositions and the foundations are the facts, evidence or other contributing evidence that helps make and argument.

At this point when we are all trying to find away to collaborate on the outcome we’ll have a message house for each of Vision, Mission and Values.

Solid Vision (future)

Current vision statement (message house roof)

Solid’s vision is a future where people have complete (1) control over their own data and are (2) free to choose and (3) change (4) the (5) software and services they use

Supporting arguments

(1) Control

Today Web based software and services store peoples data in centralised technology that is out of their control, liable to exploitation and loss.

(2) Freedom

Today people are not free to move from one software or service provider to another because access to their data is limited and impractical.

(3) Choice

Today people have little, if any, ability to choose other software and services because their data gets locked into existing services.

(4) Change

Today people cannot easily, if at all, move from one software and service provider to another because the data in their services is not interoperable.

(5) Software and Services

Today there are limited choices in Software and Services because alternative providers feel people will be locked into their existing providers.

Note: People includes the collective organisations

Stuff discussed before settling on above Vision

A future web where everyone has freedom of movement and choice in how their personal data is used.

Solid’s vision is for users to be able to conveniently switch between online services without interruption.

Control of data to give users the freedom to move

Agency over data generated.

Protecting data rights/ data security

Solid’s vision is for users to be able to conveniently self-determine online.

Solid’s vision is for users to be able to take personal data generated will using applications along when they decide to switch online service provider.

Solid’s vision is for users to use the web without having to compromise their ethics.

Solid’s vision is to make it possible for users online to have many options about how to use the Web.

Solid’s vision is to make it possible for users to pick switch between applications and take their data along. Actively decide where to store the data.

...More options for how...

A nurturing love of collaboration and knowledge creation for the public interest

Build solutions for a fair web for all.

Give people choice (of services) and the ability to change (increases the number of options)

Aspiration to a type of option?

Interoperability (people are restricted today) data is stopping freedom of movement

People should be able to freely / Move/ Options/ freedom of movement

Solid Mission (doing, bold measurable)

Working on this in next meeting

@Mitzi-Laszlo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 29, 2019

You can find a pull requests for each of the elements discussed which each represent a proposal from the Explaining the Vision Panel.

If you are interested in this conversation submit a pull request to add your name to the Explaining the Vision Panel.

To see how the proposals will be handled read more on the process.

This conversation needs to be in the roadmap repository for editorial review so I'll close this pull request.

If you want to work further on this material add your suggestions to the pull requests.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.