Present: Dan, Wendy, Robin, Christine, Jeffrey, Sam
DKA: No status changes since last year. TAG consensus for the document, modulo editorial updates. Amy is doing some editorial fixes. We need to figure out if there are others. Sangwhan raised lots of questions around plain language, e.g. the term "agency" needs more explanation.
Robin: can we get a list of words/issues? top 10?
DKA: I'll go back and request more specific feedback. We should also do an editorial pass trying to simplify.
Robin: What is blocking?
DKA: nothing blocking. Some editorial work is expected. I will make a request to Yves this week to republish draft. How will we work most effectively to conclude workstream?
Robin: 27 non backburner issue... several have progress already... With a concerted push we could close most of them... We could try to have a rythym of closing them and getting to zero...
Robin: searching backwards, excluding backburner.
Robin: We use abuse a fair bit but don't define it...
Dan: Do we need to?
Robin: we define harassment and unwanted info but don't define abuse.. In 2.9 we could almost replace with harassment ..
Sam: Amy renamed that section to Abuse...
Robin: I'd be comfortable just saying we won't define it...
Christine: I'm looking at this in a different way - I've been looking at trends in countries to introcuce new protection on internet intermediaries - against bullying, hate speech, etc... This section might get more interest than we thought it would. I'm starting to see ideas about protecting web users - offering users more control - control features to filter, etc... This section we may want to have another look at it..
Jeffrey: Age verification also falls into this...
Jeffrey: if we tighten this to harassment then that might avoid some of those problems...
Robin: Abuse is broader than harassment - so i like keeping the broader
Jeffrey: worried about not defining abuse...
Robin: "Online abuse is using digital means to treat people with cruelty and violence regularly and repeatedly... Harassment is a kind of abuse."
Jeffrey: "Abuse is the improper usage or treatment of a thing, often to unfairly or improperly gain benefit." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse
Wendy: I think 2.9 is focused on harassment against the person (versus other uses in the doc that refer to abuse of services). So I would go towards what robin suggested.
Robin agrees to do a PR on this
Robin: this is because it's passive voice, etc...
Dan: I can take this ...
Sam: I'm on board with not using 2119 - pulling out 2.14 non-retaliation ...
Jeffrey: I think we should use 'Should is "there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item"' Usually we don't use must.. But I think must not retaliate is actually reasonable...
Robin: if we convert any of these to upper case the spec will cite it... right now we're not using it.
Robin: do we need to do this though? They're mostly correct... I think we mostly use it the way we intend to... I think it's a relatively short PR to fix and review it...
Robin: either everything should be SHOULD - and not use 2119 ... OR ... we do draw distinctions (e.g. non-retaliation) and then we should reference 2119.
Wendy: leaning against 2119 capitalization - because it implies a degree of bindingness that principles don't have... We don't have measuring conformance... We wont people to take these as helping their development...
Dan: +1
Jeffrey: we could also write our own conformance section... "should means xxx, must means yyy"
Robin: if we draw a distinction.
Robin to do a PR
we discuss whether to remove definition