[Vision] Define voluntary standards as an operational principle

[fantasai]

Inspired by Tantek Çelik's PR #194
Attempts to capture the core definition from Mark Nottingham's essay
https://www.mnot.net/blog/2024/03/13/voluntary
Addresses issue #177

Could expand it a bit more, e.g. to clarify why this is a good thing (allows failure, reduces pressure for control over the standard in favor of pressure to get meaningful consensus, etc.), but figured I'd start minimalist. :)

---

Preview | Diff

[frivoal]

If someone can find a small extension of this text that captures more of the points developed in @mnot 's essay, that would be great, but I think this largely works as is, and I quite like it.

It does not cover the whole discussion and its many interesting points and consequences, but it gives a clear anchoring to this concept, which then enables us to point to Mark's essay or others in the same vein for those who want a deep dive into the idea.

That seems consistent with the rest of the list: there are many points in there for which whole essays could be written, but the vision doesn't try to inline them all. It just outlines the relevant principles, and leaves detailed discussion for elsewhere.

[tantek]

In #194 I specifically requested:

Edit suggestions welcome by the chair, or other suggestions to simplify or shorten without losing essential aspects

That is edit suggestions to that PR, not new PRs.

or changing the "voice".

This PR has a drastically different voice from the other Principles, directly going against the editor's request, which is most obvious by an unnecessary introduction of a latin phrase. Use of latin phrases make the language less readable/accessible, harder to translate and are thus undesired in the Vision. There are ZERO instances of latin phrases in the Vision (and for that matter, the Ethical Web Principles) for these and other reasons.

Also:

Wordsmithing and other aesthetic editorial suggestions are not invited at this time and are likely to be rejected.

The remainder of this PR is either aesthetic, or worse in any semantic differences ("market" rather than "users and developers" is vaguer and less respectful of our priority of constituencies.)

Closing this PR without change accordingly. I don't think it is fixable or the place to fix this.

Instead, rather than any additional PRs with suggestions on this topic, please add your suggestions as comments on issue #177 to see if we can build areas of shared agreement there.

[fantasai]

In #194 I specifically requested:

Edit suggestions welcome by the chair, or other suggestions to simplify or shorten without losing essential aspects

That is edit suggestions to that PR, not new PRs.

This isn't a "suggestion to simplify or shorten", it's a different take, which is why I opened a separate PR. In your PR, you only welcomed more general edit suggestions from the chair, and I am not a chair; therefore I understood that I was not welcome to make any suggestions to your PR.