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

Re: Request for CCG Chair Intervention in CCG Process

From: Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 18:28:41 -0700
Message-Id: <222f324b-4b07-4ba1-b7c9-34418b529778@www.fastmail.com>
To: "Credentials Community Group" <public-credentials@w3.org>

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021, at 2:52 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> This is a request for intervention by the CCG Chairs on a CCG Process question
> that has been raised in the VC HTTP API Work Item group.

Yes, please.

I answered Manu's latest in Github. You can find my position articulated at https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-http-api/pull/224#issuecomment-901536833

TLDR: subgroup/task force call facilitators should not be free to manipulate voting processes. Especially when doing to with the express purpose of bypassing consensus. Spectext without consensus should not be merged.

The chairs are the appropriate authority for resolving this impasse.

-j

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021, at 2:52 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> This is a request for intervention by the CCG Chairs on a CCG Process question
> that has been raised in the VC HTTP API Work Item group.
> 
> The crux of the issue is that there are some in the VC HTTP API Work Item
> group that believe that there is no clear escalation process for resolving
> decisions that are unable to achieve group consensus.
> 
> Some have asserted that the definition of "consensus" is not clear and that
> the CCG does not necessarily follow W3C Process (because it has created its
> own bespoke rules over the years).
> 
> A recent attempt at polling for consensus, and then when that failed, backing
> off to a majority vote of those present, and when that failed, using a simple
> majority vote of those that were present:
> 
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-07-13-vchttpapi/#topic-4
> 
> ... has resulted in an objection that the approach is not acceptable for the CCG:
> 
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-http-api/pull/224#discussion_r682106281
> 
> ... which then resulted in a meta discussion about CCG process:
> 
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-08-17-vchttpapi/#topic-3
> 
> Chairs, please clarify the escalation process for decisions that don't achieve
> consensus.
> 
> My personal suggestion is to make the following clarifications:
> 
> 1. Clarify that the applicable definitions and
>    sections of the W3C Process document are the base
>    definitions and operating procedure for the CCG and the
>    Work Item groups. Refer to the document explicitly
>    from the CCG Process.
> 
> 2. Clearly state that all decisions are to be made
>    by group consensus (as defined by the W3C Process
>    Document). If consensus fails, the Editors
>    of a particular document can make a binding consensus
>    decision to get the group to move on. That decision can
>    be appealed with the W3C CCG Chairs who will make
>    the final decision.
> 
> Please provide a resolution to this issue sooner than later, as it continues
> to negatively impact the VC HTTP API work.
> 
> -- 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/
> 
> 
> 

--
Joe Andrieu, PMP                                                                              joe@legreq.com
LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS                                                        +1(805)705-8651
Do what matters.                                                                            http://legreq.com <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com/>
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2021 01:29:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 19 August 2021 01:29:28 UTC