- From: =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 May 2019 17:55:03 -0700
- To: Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>
- Cc: "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>, "W3C Digital Verification CG (Public List)" <public-digital-verification@w3.org>, Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>, Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com>
- Message-ID: <CAAjunnZ_snkwZFLHgsVfN7Kbi6F-6igMG5ACkHgk2oFNfjGbkg@mail.gmail.com>
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 > >
Received on Sunday, 5 May 2019 00:55:39 UTC