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

Re: Request for CCG Chair Intervention in CCG Process

From: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:04:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CANYRo8g2myOrCqQP11grnncKQ=CETL6aFMOfuKTieVQBdkgc4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Heather Vescent <heathervescent@gmail.com>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>, Wayne Chang <wyc@fastmail.fm>
Thank you for the quick and thorough response. I believe the other two
resolutions made that day do not meet the criteria for group consensus.
Should they be removed entirely, as well?

- Adrian


On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:50 PM Heather Vescent <heathervescent@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Community,
>
> At CCG, all decisions should be driven by consensus of the community for a
> particular work item. As a W3C community group, we have the W3C processes
> at our disposal, but these are as a best practice, not a requirement if
> another process is in the best interest of the community. In this case we
> refer to consensus from this document:
> https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#Consensus
>
> In the topic of VC-HTTP-API and GNAP, both sides have been collaborating
> in good faith despite opposing perspectives. Based on discussion of this
> issue and review of it by the three CCG co-chairs, we offer the following
> clarifications:
>
> 1) We believe as chairs that most importantly all parties are acting in
> good faith, and we ask the community to extend that good faith to each
> other especially with those with opposing viewpoints.
>
> 2) The work item escalation processes is first to raise objections to the
> work item spec editors (in this case: Manu Sporny, Markus Sabadello, Mike
> Varley, Orie Steele, Mahmoud Alkhraishi). If this does not result in a
> resolution or there is a principled objection, the escalation can be
> brought to the CCG Chairs.
>
> 3) While there is a formal process to approve an official CCG work item;
> we do not have formally defined operational requirements for individual
> work items. The chairs will document the escalation process described above
> (#2) in the work item process document:
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/workitem-process.
>
> 4) We as chairs do not believe based on call transcripts and github
> discussions that the "RESOLUTION: One of the authorization mechanisms
> defined for the VC HTTP API MUST be GNAP" has group consensus, and as
> chairs recommend removing it entirely.
>
> 5) We as chairs recommend in the future as a best practice that any PRs be
> separated with a single PR per resolution wherever possible.
>
> The chairs believed a reasoned and swift response was in the best interest
> of forward momentum of the work.
>
> - The CCG Chairs
> Heather, Mike & Wayne
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 7:52 AM Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Heather Vescent <http://www.heathervescent.com/>
> Co-Chair, Credentials Community Group @W3C
> <https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/>
> President, The Purple Tornado, Inc <https://thepurpletornado.com/>
> Author, The Secret of Spies <https://amzn.to/2GfJpXH>
> Author, The Cyber Attack Survival Manual
> <https://www.amazon.com/Cyber-Attack-Survival-Manual-Apocalypse/dp/1681886545/>
> Author, A Comprehensive Guide to Self Sovereign Identity
> <https://ssiscoop.com/>
>
> @heathervescent <https://twitter.com/heathervescent> | Film Futures
> <https://vimeo.com/heathervescent> | Medium
> <https://medium.com/@heathervescent/> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/heathervescent/> | Future of Security Updates
> <https://app.convertkit.com/landing_pages/325779/>
>
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2021 17:04:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 19 August 2021 17:04:46 UTC