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

Re: Request for CCG Chair Intervention in CCG Process

From: Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 07:48:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGJKSNTEUuHz_EJh4WsbAkQHZyednMXpKynGC_-RNjDA-Ru7tA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
The chairs are meeting today to begin discussion on the issue.   We will
try and be timely with a response.

Michael Prorock
CTO, Founder
mesur.io

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021, 21:31 Joe Andrieu <joe@legreq.com> wrote:

>
> 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 11:50:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 19 August 2021 11:50:22 UTC