- From: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 08:40:26 +0000
- To: Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <MWHPR1301MB2094FD98E01C3A29AEAB5E34C3F39@MWHPR1301MB2094.namprd13.prod.outlook.>
RE: Rather, tech that works becomes the focus of attention and people who care about that work help define a consensus standard that meets the requirements of the largest percentage of actual implementers. It's different implementers finding the best way to work together. … The work isn't research, it's alignment. … In short, the W3C is a standards organization, not a research group. Joe, if you look at the history of the development of the DID, VC, EDV, and Data Hub specifications as examples, there are pure examples of specifications being researched and built on the fly by small groups of insiders. Each spec is the result of a separate clique …with mostly overlapping membership. The statement “The work isn't research, it's alignment.” is a half-truth. Michael Herman From: Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com> Sent: August 5, 2021 11:35 PM To: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>; Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org> Subject: Re: Super Majority Votes: how are we measuring this? If your argument isn't found compelling, that isn't clichism (whatever that means). It just means your words didn't resonate with others. However, you have a good point. The W3C is not a place for first principles thinking. It's a place for standardizing working systems. The incubation of happens in other forums. The CCG is one avenue that helps transition from incubation to standards track. It's approach is exceptionally experimental and as such, definitely could use some maturation. It's kind of a weird outlier in the W3C system. We've managed to be extremely prolific and successful at transitioning well-developed technology to proper working groups and eventually to standards. However, that has really only been successful so far with technology that has essentially already been figured out. We haven't had as much luck with younger ideas, precisely because figuring out what works is hard; it's nearly impossible to do that as a committee. Rather, tech that works becomes the focus of attention and people who care about that work help define a consensus standard that meets the requirements of the largest percentage of actual implementers. It's different implementers finding the best way to work together. The work isn't research, it's alignment. In short, the W3C is a standards organization, not a research group. -j On Thu, Aug 5, 2021, at 10:17 PM, Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) wrote: This smells of clichism Joe and suggests CCG/W3C is not open to/not a place for original/first principles thinking …if good points are rejected so easily. Reference: https://hyperonomy.com/2021/03/10/first-principles-thinking/ Michael From: Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com<mailto:joe@legreq.com>> Sent: August 5, 2021 11:10 PM To: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org<mailto:public-credentials@w3.org>> Subject: Re: Super Majority Votes: how are we measuring this? On Thu, Aug 5, 2021, at 9:32 PM, Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) wrote: 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/>) I appreciate your frustration, but this question has an easy answer. It's not the chairs' job to see that everyone's ideas are addressed by the group. They are there to make sure the process advances toward the best consensus. If other people in the group don't find your argument compelling, then you likely aren't going to get traction. That's not up to the call leader, it's up to everyone else on the call. ANYONE could have responded and elevated your concern. No one did. You might have a legitimate gripe if the moderator refused to call on you or made an exceptional request to exclude your comments from the record. However, you were recognized. You had your opportunity to present your concerns. They were recorded in the minutes and given equal wait to everyone's opinions. And the conversation moved on. IMO, that is precisely how it should work. The moderator made sure you had the chance to say your piece and they kept the conversation moving forward by facilitating a queue of comments from others. They don't determine the queue or what people say, they merely facilitate the conversation. -j -- Joe Andrieu, PMP joe@legreq.com<mailto:joe@legreq.com> LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS +1(805)705-8651 Do what matters. http://legreq.com<http://www.legendaryrequirements.com> -- Joe Andrieu, PMP joe@legreq.com<mailto:joe@legreq.com> LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS +1(805)705-8651 Do what matters. http://legreq.com<http://www.legendaryrequirements.com>
Received on Friday, 6 August 2021 08:40:43 UTC