This is the part that feels the most misguided to me:
> a fundamental conversation about where we want to push the web forward to.
There's no such thing as a "conversation" between the billions of people with a stake in this. Or even the few million people building websites and web apps. Or even the few thousand people building web browsers. Attempting to have that conversation just means open-ended delay. There will never be a clear consensus on where we want to push the web forward to. And that's OK.
> There's no such thing as a "conversation" between the billions of people with a stake in this.
Well, not exactly. That's how you wind up getting diversity of fields.
People have different interests and different visions of the future. People understand computation differently. People approach the same problem in different ways. Through conversation and code, the web is weaved together.
My thought is this. Put up or shut up. Why waste your time under a forum about a developer who wants more stable, secure software? Surely this view provides some benefit to the community, lest we prefer languages that compute incorrectly with regularity and a proliferation of vulnerabilities across every domain that has been coupled with technology.
But people are conversing about it in browser dev groups and in standards meetings (WAI, WHATWG and whatever) and such; they're just doing it with a focus to their own ends rather than the ends of the more general user population of the web.
As it should be, those who do the work get to make the decisions, that's how it works. People work for their own self interest, not for the benefit of the "general user population".
Altruism; not exclusively, not always, not all people work only for their own benefit.
Many, I warrant, consider that something as game-changing and all pervading as the web (and internet in general) should be tailored as much as we're able to the greater good of all people. Others want to make it illegal to collect rain for drinking in drought zones so they can get a better financial profit selling bottled water. And there's a whole scale in-between of course.
But the web and the Internet are not things themselves, those are merely abstract words that describe a collection of privately owned computers doing things their owners deem in their self interest. Anyone who talks about what the Web should be doesn't understand what the Web is nor what decentralized means. No one gets to say what it is, it simply is what those who build it make it.
> a fundamental conversation about where we want to push the web forward to.
There's no such thing as a "conversation" between the billions of people with a stake in this. Or even the few million people building websites and web apps. Or even the few thousand people building web browsers. Attempting to have that conversation just means open-ended delay. There will never be a clear consensus on where we want to push the web forward to. And that's OK.