- From: Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>
- Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 07:26:35 -0400
- To: "Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web)" <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
- Cc: "public-credentials (public-credentials@w3.org)" <public-credentials@w3.org>, Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
- Message-ID: <CAGJKSNQ832QkkVjZnaWuRFOC=QP=NCVwUvjRD-mcNrDcWUii3g@mail.gmail.com>
Michael, This question is exactly why we need to formally discuss and document the process. Michael Prorock CTO, Founder mesur.io On Thu, Aug 5, 2021, 01:58 Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) < mwherman@parallelspace.net> wrote: > Mike, > > 67% of what population? All of CCG? All of a WG? All of the regular > participants over a series of calls related to a particular specification? > > Michael Herman > > Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 4, 2021 6:54:23 AM > *To:* public-credentials (public-credentials@w3.org) < > public-credentials@w3.org> > *Subject:* Re: Super Majority Votes: how are we measuring this? > > The problem is not in the voting and it will not be solved by changing any > process internal to VC-HTTP. The problem is with CCG and W3C leadership. > It's the same problem that's causing heartburn with Third-Party Cookies. > It's the difference between W3C and IETF. > > It's unfair for W3C and CCG to dump their problem on the VC-HTTP group. As > with the Cookies, the issue is authorization, transparency, protocols that > don't depend on a browser vs. an app vs. an authorization agent and dealing > with consolidated platforms. W3C needs to deal with that and CCG can help. > > I'm just the messenger. Please don't shoot me. > > - Adrian > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 8:23 AM Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io> wrote: > > 67% would be a very normal starting place for a super majority. > > That, ultimately, is not the issue though. As outlined in the comment > here: > https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-http-api/pull/224 > > As noted by Mr. Andrieu the real issue is this: > "Community process guidelines are at > https://w3c-ccg.github.io/workitem-process/ which sadly, mentions the > "CG's documented consensus process" but doesn't provide a link." > > This is something we as chairs will have to take on fixing in order to > prevent the issue from occurring in the future, and we need to establish > clear definitionson consensus, etc, and what to do as a communitygroup when > things "get stuck". As Joe has noted: > "when the group is clearly bifurcated for and against a resolution, 50+% > is not an appropriate decision making tool." > > There will be some updates and corrections of links coming on the main > community documentation, as well as some proposals to the main group at the > CCG related to areas where there is not a defined W3C precendet for handing > consensus issues. > > What also needs to be clarified in the community docs is the work item > escalation process in the event of a grid lock as we saw here. > > Michael Prorock > CTO, Founder > mesur.io > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2021, 05:58 Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) < > mwherman@parallelspace.net> wrote: > > As a follow-on from yesterday's VC HTTP API call, how are we > measuring/establishing what represents a successful Super Majority vote? > > Is it a (large) percentage of "something"? > If so, what is the something and what is the percentage? > > Michael > > Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> > >
Received on Thursday, 5 August 2021 11:27:00 UTC