Re: Feedback on Zoom & Jitsi for CCG Meetings

On 11/13/20 5:26 PM, Heather Vescent wrote:
> I refuse to allow us to get distracted re-inventing the wheel.

Well, that changes the whole dynamic behind the effort, doesn't it. :)

The impression that I've had as we've tried to make the transition was
that we had Chair support to upgrade W3C CCG infrastructure. Based on
your response, it seems like this has changed (or maybe it was more of a
+0 instead of a +1, or there never really was support of all of the Chairs).

In any case, fighting the Chairs on anything is a losing proposition. I
just wish I (and those that have helped) had known this before putting
in all of the time.

> I have to think you may have lost sight of the purpose of the 
> community, which is to focus on VCs and DIDs and credentialing 
> technology, not re-build infrastructure.

With due respect, and as one of the founders that launched this group in
2014[1], wrote its first charter[2], and organized its meetings for
years[3], I don't think I have lost sight of the purpose of the
community. It's current purpose is very close to its original
purpose[4]. The statement above makes it seem as if these initiatives
are zero-sum and they are not.

Our ability to collectively hold meetings that moves different work
items forward in parallel is important, and as we grow, that has to
scale. What we're doing right now is not scalable. It requires too much
knowledge of W3C Process and Github and the scribing infrastructure,
etc. It should all be automated in order for us to be able to empower
more people to hold meetings w/o having to know all the things that past
and current Chairs do about holding meetings. It's too burdensome.

It's also clear that this transition has been burdensome to the current
Chairs, as evidenced by your response, and I'm sensitive to that and
have been doing my best to try and push us through this transition as
quickly as time and availability allows. One of the goals here was to,
over time, reduce the burden on the Chairs.

That said, not having Chair support just sets the transition up for
failure. The focus shifts from getting through the transition to how the
next Jitsi error is going to be used as proof positive that we should
abandon the current attempts and just go with Zoom. That creates a
stressful environment for those working on the solution, where the
expectation is that if the system fails, it's scuttled along with the
time investment to date.

At this point, I'm not sure what the Chairs want. Could the Chairs
please provide a list of requirements for the new system? We're trying
to build something that works for you, too. If what is being done right
now isn't helpful, then just tell us to stop.

-- manu

[1]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2014Aug/0001.html
[2]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2014Aug/0025.html
[3]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/
[4]http://manu.sporny.org/2014/identity-credentials/

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches

Received on Monday, 16 November 2020 14:21:39 UTC