- From: Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 14:07:30 -0400
- To: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
- Cc: Heather Vescent <heathervescent@gmail.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Wayne Chang <wyc@fastmail.fm>
- Message-ID: <CAGJKSNRCWSHAFV=3aqwHRH3bRnrmz-Rxn4VhcJyDCYTTmDfzwg@mail.gmail.com>
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