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

Well stated Manu.  Thanks.

Michael Prorock
CTO, Founder
mesur.io

On Sat, Aug 7, 2021, 17:24 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 8/6/21 12:32 AM, Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) wrote:
> > It sounds like we’re all shooting in the dark in terms of what the actual
> > members of CCG want, need, and expect.
>
> No, please stop... we're not all shooting in the dark.
>
> Some of us have been doing this (global standards in fully public settings)
> for much longer than others and have experiences that are influencing
> where we
> take the group next. It may feel to some of the newer folks that we're
> shooting in the dark, but this sort of upheaval from time to time is
> completely normal, especially around work items that are less than a few
> years
> old.
>
> People get triggered, get on soap boxes, make speeches about their
> position,
> and after a while... after everyone starts listening to each other, things
> usually settle down to some sort of compromise... and the group moves on.
>
> > A curious term to say the least.  How does W3C/CCG define “best
> consensus”
> > Joe?
>
> For official W3C Working Groups, it's defined here, in the W3C Process
> document:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#Consensus
>
> For the CCG, it's some variation of that... as W3C Community Groups don't
> have
> to follow official W3C Process (although, usually it's a good idea because
> that's 25+ years of hard won wisdom on how to create global standards).
>
> > 1. My thoughts exactly.  In that spirit, the "67%" is meaningless and
> IMO>
> > shouldn't have been offered without a legitimate context.
> The context was the existing W3C Process... we were failing to achieve
> consensus on the questions related to GNAP and RAR and the VC HTTP API w/o
> what could be considered as principled objections from Adrian and Justin:
>
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-06-22-vchttpapi/#topic-7
>
> The group was then notified that we'd be TEMPORARILY switching to majority
> voting for the "Authorization Proposals":
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2021Jul/0067.html
>
> It was also explicitly mentioned on the call before we went into this mode
> (with no objections raised when we did). While it was stated that it was
> going
> to be simple majority (>50%), it seems as if some were confused about this
> at
> the time:
>
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-07-13-vchttpapi/#40
>
> There was a concern raised /after/ the votes came in and a suggestion to
> "not
> do this again":
>
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-07-13-vchttpapi/#147
>
> ... and we'll be picking that concern up during next weeks call under the
> banner of the following W3C Process policy (which we are not bound to
> follow,
> but are doing so because that process has worked well many times over the
> past
> 25+ years):
>
> https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#WGChairReopen
>
> Joe will have the floor, as well as anyone else, to make concrete
> proposals to
> move us forward. At present, it looks like Joe is only objecting to one of
> the
> resolutions made:
>
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-http-api/pull/224/files#r682106281
>
> One simple way we could address that is to:
>
> * Re-open a vote on just that item due to "new
>   information" and decide if it'll be consensus-based,
>   majority-based, or to what degree.
> * Agree that we wanted to apply 2/3rds majority
>   to just that one proposal (making it not pass).
>
> ... or something else clever that folks want to propose concretely.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>
>
>