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

Re: Request for CCG Chair Intervention in CCG Process

From: Heather Vescent <heathervescent@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 10:09:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+C6qMwQbN4YHZobXcUoUfoEV84PHxYiReUyo5ZPQdsLb3S0AQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Manu,

A few comments that add flexibility/zeitgeist to the clarity you seek.

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 9:38 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 8/20/21 7:15 AM, Mike Prorock wrote:
> > You are asking some great questions.  I am going to answer inline so
> that
> > things don't get missed.
>
> Thank you for the responses, Mike, Heather, and Wayne. The CCG Chairs
> position
> feels crystal clear to me and I really appreciate the speed and
> decisiveness
> with which the Chairs engaged.
>
> 3. There will be no ability for a group to use any form of
>    simple majority or supermajority voting to make a
>    temporary decision, manage dissent, and/or move on. We
>    are now required to use the full blown W3C Process for
>    all resolutions in work item groups.


Over and over when I have asked for clarity on how to run the CCG, or what
are our responsibilities/chair responsibilities, or guidelines on what is
or is not acceptable from a community group, W3C staff has given me the
waffly answer that, as a "community group" we are not bound by the same
requirements as a "work group." This is always framed as it gives the
community group to have more flexibility to do the things the community
wants to do. This also means a community group can use processes that would
be problematic or otherwise not be accepted in a working group. I,
personally have not enjoyed this uncertainty or lack of clear direction,
but I accept it, and so I pass this same ethos into the CCG processes.

I am uncomfortable dictating the operational/process requirements for
community group work items for the above reasons. I would like to trust
that the work item owners will use the appropriate process that best suits
the needs of the work item and the community - and that means you are not
limited to sanctioned W3C processes per the guidance I have received from
W3C in the past. If there are issues with the processes or the way the work
item is being done, these can be escalated via the process we outlined.

-Heather


> Works for me, proposals for the VC HTTP API work item group to move on are
> forthcoming.
>
> -- 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/
>
>
>

-- 
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 Friday, 20 August 2021 14:10:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 August 2021 14:10:17 UTC