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

Re: Request for CCG Chair Intervention in CCG Process

From: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:57:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN8C-_JQa3mdNrZRHARgu-_yhcfekDUHYMEYW3oEwZAGMDEyAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Cc: Heather Vescent <heathervescent@gmail.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>, Wayne Chang <wyc@fastmail.fm>
> Should they be removed entirely, as well?

Yes, PRs for resolutions that have objections should not be merged.

Editors are responsible for implementing consensus and acknowledging when
it does not exist.

As an editor, based on my experience on the calls, I recommend the
chairs direct the editors to move API authorization out of scope for the
work item and into a separate document, that can explain the pro's and
con's of GNAP and OAuth, and have the main spec simply refer to that
document, and note that the working group could not agree to any normative
requirements regarding securing HTTP APIs.

Perhaps new work items called "vc-http-api-with-gnap" and
"vc-http-api-with-oauth", or similar.

As an implementer, Transmute has no plans to support GNAP at this time, and
we can't afford to participate on a work item that bundles support for it
as a requirement.

If other implementers feel the same about OAuth2, the only option I can see
is to not discuss either in the VC-HTTP-API work item calls.


On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:06 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>

> 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
>>>>        +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/>

Chief Technical Officer

Received on Thursday, 19 August 2021 18:57:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:21 UTC