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

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

From: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 04:32:42 +0000
To: Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>
CC: "public-credentials (public-credentials@w3.org)" <public-credentials@w3.org>, Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Message-ID: <MWHPR1301MB209407096CE7C3DC7DBA27F1C3F39@MWHPR1301MB2094.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
1. My thoughts exactly.  In that spirit, the "67%" is meaningless and IMO shouldn't have been offered without a legitimate context.

2. A specific additional process issue I'd like to raise is when a specific, relevant comment or question is raised (after and by someone who "raised their hand"), and it is dutifully recorded in the minutes/online recording, and then completely ignored/forgotten by the call's moderator or chairperson.

A specific example of the latter that I raised yesterday is the need to have VC HTTP protocol support for Unbound Verifiable Credentials. Dutifully recorded then ignored/ forgotten by the moderator. This is another/specific flavour of the cliche behavior that JoeA described in his post. (Also see https<https://hyperonomy.com/2019/04/09/clique-speak/>://hyperonomy.com/2019/04/09/clique-speak/<https://hyperonomy.com/2019/04/09/clique-speak/>)

3. Also, why, in the VC HTTP protocol specification, is attribution given to specific organizations like DHS for partially funding the development of the VC HTTP specification? Why isn't my company and everyone else's company also mentioned? ...more clichism? IMO, all references to DHS wrt funding or sponsorship need to be removed from all W3C specifications.

Let's clean up everything.

Best regards,
Michael Herman

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

________________________________
From: Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>
Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 5:26:35 AM
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>
Subject: Re: Super Majority Votes: how are we measuring this?

Michael,
This question is exactly why we need to formally discuss and document the process.

Michael Prorock
CTO, Founder
mesur.io<http://mesur.io>

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021, 01:58 Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net<mailto: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<mailto:agropper@healthurl.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 6:54:23 AM
To: public-credentials (public-credentials@w3.org<mailto:public-credentials@w3.org>) <public-credentials@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://mesur.io>

On Wed, Aug 4, 2021, 05:58 Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net<mailto: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 Friday, 6 August 2021 04:32:58 UTC

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