W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > April 2020

Re: Regarding "scope" of the new CCG charter

From: Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:53:12 -0700
Message-Id: <afc25ed0-f3c1-4f6d-8899-a15d19511056@www.fastmail.com>
To: "Credentials Community Group" <public-credentials@w3.org>
That sounds, right, Kim.

We've already kicked off the election, so we don't have an easy way to adjust the proposal as currently voted.

HOWEVER, the new charter actually makes it easier to adjust if the group has strong consensus to do so.

It would be good to revisit this after the upcoming election to see if there is better language that could address Daniel's points.

-j

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020, at 2:34 PM, Kim Hamilton wrote:
> Hi all,
> Partially on behalf of the chairs (I'm piecing this response together from chair email threads and discussions)[1], I wanted to weigh in on the "scope" section from the new CCG charter that's being discussed in various threads[2].
> 
> The chairs did not solicit feedback on the scope because it did not change from the previous version of the charter. Joe pointed out (and I agree) that this is possibly an oversight on our part. From my perspective, I was eager to discuss and get feedback on the sections we did change, because our changes took much longer than expected. On behalf of all the chairs, we wanted to unblock the new election process so that we can move forward with the next chair election -- we are eager to encourage new leadership in the group.
> 
> At this point, I'd lean towards moving forward with the vote on the charter as-is, but not considering this topic closed -- we can revisit changing the scope section even after the new charter has landed. This would unblock the next election cycle, and generally allow us to land the significant changes we did make.
> 
> We're open to feedback, and it may make sense to discuss this briefly at the next meeting. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Kim
> 
> [1] Joe/Christopher have every right to correct me if I misinterpreted/mis-summarized anything
> [2] My personal interpretation is the broader one, but that's less important than whether the group feels the language accurately reflects our goals/scope. This is why I'd be in favor of giving this discussion proper attention rather than proposing a quick patch to the scope language.

--
Joe Andrieu, PMP joe@legreq.com
LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS +1(805)705-8651
Do what matters. http://legreq.com <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com/>
Received on Friday, 10 April 2020 21:53:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:58 UTC