W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > August 2021

Re: Super Majority Votes: how are we measuring this?

From: Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 07:26:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGJKSNQ832QkkVjZnaWuRFOC=QP=NCVwUvjRD-mcNrDcWUii3g@mail.gmail.com>
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>
This question is exactly why we need to formally discuss and document the

Michael Prorock
CTO, Founder

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:21 UTC