Re: Message and Action Plan from CCG Chairs

Kim, I want to thank you and Joe and Christopher for helping to address all
of these issues in what is clearly a very passionate community.

Your collective efforts to lead this group are deeply appreciated.

=Drummond

On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 11:16 AM Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com> wrote:

> *tl;dr Action plan from the CCG chairs on process and roadmap visibility,
> improving inclusivity, and ensuring a positive work environment*
>
>
> Dear CCG Community,
>
> Recent discussions have highlighted ways in which we can improve our
> community.
>
> Much of this is informed by the 2018 CCG End Of Year Survey. We are very
> grateful to Heather Vescent and Karn Verma for leading this effort, and to
> all community members for providing this feedback. This pointed out some
> important opportunities for growth and improvement.
>
> Another impetus is unconstructive communication we’ve observed in github
> discussions and community calls.
>
> Below we outline our specific plans to address some of these issues. Note
> that many of these will require community-wide effort. We need your help
> and support.
> Concern that process and roadmap is unclear
>
> We hear you, and the chairs are working on these highest priority. We
> think this is the root cause of some other issues discussed below.
>
> First, the chairs are wrapping up the CCG work item process for review
> within the next few weeks. We want to make sure that the process is clear,
> accessible, and used consistently throughout the community.
>
> Second, we will make sure the broad strokes of the roadmap are
> communicated more clearly going forward. We want to ensure that the roadmap
> is community driven -- not just selected by a few. At any time, if your
> interests are not reflected, please propose a work item (again, we are
> making sure this is clearer in the coming weeks). If you are not feeling
> sufficiently supported, please reach out to the chairs, and we will help.
>
> Perception of insularity/need for more knowledge transfer opportunities
>
> We understand and take seriously the feedback that it is hard to get
> involved with CCG work. We feel clarifying the work item process and
> roadmap will help address some aspects, but more is needed. We need the
> entire community to help with the following:
>
> - More mentorship/knowledge transfer opportunities (e.g. working groups
> could make time to pair with newbies)
>
> - Work item groups to help define and advertise opportunities for help
>
> - Help us raise awareness of existing opportunities for help the chairs
> have called out
>
> - Your constructive proposals for additional improvements, whether that’s
> work items, dedicated times in meetings, etc. We want to hear from you
> Bridging to non-technical contributions
>
> We are committed to improving opportunities for contributions of a
> non-technical nature. We realize that broader perspectives are critical to
> building these standards correctly. We need your help. Please propose
> concrete, constructive suggestions, whether that's in the form of work
> items, or simply ongoing time in a meeting to discuss. The chairs commit to
> supporting these efforts and will help obtain the help you need to be
> successful.
>
> Please keep in mind that inevitably some conversations and efforts have
> aspects that are highly technical in nature. The chairs and working groups
> need to factor in the urgency of such efforts. That said, we are committed
> to building better bridges, and we need your input to make this possible.
> Constructive collaboration
>
> A specific discussion that has taken a negative turn is that of what
> constitutes a sufficiently decentralized DID method -- both on calls and in
> github issues. That is just one example of topics that seem to be taking an
> increasingly destructive turm.
>
> We believe at least some of this is caused by the concerns about process
> (which we plan to address, as described above). Speaking specifically about
> the decentralization discussion, the chairs and DID spec editors are aware
> of this problem, and have been already been driving towards a proposal to
> reach consensus. To that end, Joe Andrieu initiated some discussions at IIW
> to help lead to a solution, the DID spec group will continue to discuss on
> Thursday calls before submitting a proposal for review by the broader
> community.
>
>
> But the broader issue is the need to communicate effectively and
> constructively. Beyond possible confusion about process, several additional
> factors are likely at play. As we ready the DID spec and relevant docs for
> WG review, people may be stressed to get work done, and people are very
> passionate about their perspectives (they've invested significant time to
> this important work). We appreciate this passion; our work depends on it,
> and it makes us successful as a group.
>
> We think the above efforts are part of the solution, but we have also been
> lax on enforcing a code of conduct. We cannot tolerate attacks on other
> members or other behaviors that compromise the efforts of the group, such
> as attempting to dominate the discussion, questioning the integrity of
> other members without basis, and detracting from productive conversation
> with passive-aggressive background commentary. Such actions violate the W3C
> Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct and will no longer be tolerated.
>
> If you have concerns about a process or a person, it is important to keep
> your objective in mind and not engage in attacks on CCG calls, mailing
> lists, or github issues. Please discuss your concerns with the
> individual(s) first; checking your frustration and working from the
> assumption that all of us are working with good intent toward shared
> goals.. If you’ve discussed your concerns and are not comfortable with the
> response or resolution, we ask that you tell the chairs immediately so that
> we can investigate and resolve. Please be specific; it is hard for us to
> take action if the first we hear about a concern is in the context of a
> public attack without context.
>
> To prevent destructive behaviors from harming the efforts (and draining
> the energy) of the group, the chairs look to you to help ensure a positive
> work environment. We will be more proactive in maintaining a healthy,
> professional work environment and we are asking for your active support to
> shape the conversations that drive our work forward.
> Positive Work Environment
>
> The chairs would like to bring renewed focus on the W3C Code of Conduct,
> with a goal of ensuring a positive work environment. Please refer to the
> W3C Code of Conduct (https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/).
>
> The W3C Positive Work Environment CG (https://www.w3.org/community/pwe/)
> is working on a set of more comprehensive guidance. We are committed to
> upholding their guidance when that is complete. Until then, here are some
> useful practices enabling healthy collaboration with your peers.
>
> Respect
>
>    -
>
>    All participants should strive to treat each other with dignity and
>    respect. Diverse perspectives are critical to our success
>    -
>
>    When listening to input and comments of others, start by assuming the
>    most benign interpretation and the best intention of the speaker. If
>    comment is phrased in a way that might be misinterpreted, ask for
>    clarification of the statement or intent. If the comment is discomforting
>    (or hostile), please reach out to the chairs.
>    -
>
>    Respect the privacy of others
>
> Collaborate
>
>    -
>
>    Be open to new ideas and learning from others
>    -
>
>    In moments of strong disagreement, we ask participants to “agree to
>    disagree,” stay focused on the goals of the session or discussion and move
>    on to address shared needs and shared opportunities.
>
> Include
>
>    -
>
>    Follow the “Rule of 1” and the “Rule of n”: When you speak, make 1
>    point and then let others speak, and when in a group of “n” people, speak
>    “1/nth” of the time.
>
>
> Attempt to resolve issues directly with your colleagues, but please
> escalate to the chairs if you cannot resolve or feel you are being harassed.
> Thank you and next steps
>
> We are grateful that you’ve shared your honest feedback and are committed
> to making the changes we need to make this a more collaborative, welcoming
> group. To summarize the comments above, we plan to:
>
>
>    -
>
>    Finalize work items process and review with CCG
>    -
>
>       Owner: Chairs
>       -
>
>       Goal: completion early June
>       -
>
>    Better awareness of roadmap
>    -
>
>       Owner: Chairs
>       -
>
>       Goal: completion early June
>       -
>
>    Suggestions for broader collaboration (beyond above)
>    -
>
>       Volunteer(s) needed!
>       -
>
>    Suggestions for bridging to non-technical audiences
>    -
>
>       Volunteer(s) needed!
>       -
>
>    Resolution for decentralization discussion
>    -
>
>       Owner: Chairs, DID spec editors
>       -
>
>    Positive work environment discussion
>    -
>
>       Owner: Chairs and all
>       -
>
>       Goal: Review during next CCG call
>
>
> Lastly, please keep in mind that your chairs are doing the best they can.
> We are honored and humbled to have been selected by you to lead this group
> and its important efforts. We have our limitations and need your help to
> ensure this large/prolific community remains successful.
>
> If you made it this far, thank you for taking the time to read this email.
> Thank you for your contributions to date. And thank you for your ongoing
> efforts to advance the work of the Credentials Community Group.
>
> — W3C-CCG Co-Chairs: Christopher Allen, Kim Hamilton Duffy & Joe Andrieu
>
>