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 14:07:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGJKSNRCWSHAFV=3aqwHRH3bRnrmz-Rxn4VhcJyDCYTTmDfzwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Cc: Heather Vescent <heathervescent@gmail.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Wayne Chang <wyc@fastmail.fm>
As a chair, I will reference our response above:
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).

I defer to the editors of the spec on the other resolutions.

Mike Prorock
CTO, Founder
https://mesur.io/



On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 1:04 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
wrote:

> 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 18:07:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 19 August 2021 18:07:58 UTC