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


From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 12:37:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA1s49W7WTrG1m0-+mk457xiz5yEgeUy4M-MWi7-Z0jOrZUH8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
It seems to me that if a time is specified in an international technical
forum, such as this one, that one should assume that it is UTC/GMT time
unless a time zone is provided. Thus, if there are any objections to the
poll closing when it did, the objection should be that polling closed too
late, not too early.

Note: This is merely a comment. I make no objection.

bob wyman

On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 12:13 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

> On 8/20/21 6:11 PM, Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) wrote:
> > p.s. I don’t want to see the existing votes thrown out. I'll withdraw my
> > objection first.
> Good to hear, this is the sort of consideration to the burden put on the
> rest
> of the community that we like to see with any principled objection.
> To be crystal clear about how I feel about your objection (because I do
> think
> it would be healthy for someone in the community to acknowledge how
> misguided
> this objection is):
> * The poll and timing was announced four weeks in
>   advance.
> * The poll opening date and duration was announced on the
>   weekly calls (and in the minutes) multiple times.
> * There was ample opportunity to vote (it was open for a
>   week, with a week preceding the vote to review the
>   options, and then two weeks preceding that to provide
>   options).
> Yes, I failed to mention the time zone. However, if you're counting on a
> time
> zone to argue the technicality of THIS vote, I don't expect that you'll get
> much sympathy as there were seven 24 hour periods where you could have
> voted
> remotely and you didn't.
> To then raise a principled objection over an optional poll that is
> non-binding
> and that is just meant to collect information for the community, thus
> generating even more work for the community, is... in my not so humble
> opinion
> ... an abuse of the principled objection process.
> With all that said, here's an option:
> There are two people that have emailed to say that they missed the poll and
> intended to vote (one of them privately). If both of these individuals are
> willing to 1) send their votes to the mailing list and 2) tally and
> cross-check the final rankings (thus taking on the burden of the work
> you're
> asking the community to do), then we can count those two additional votes
> as
> long as someone from the community doesn't object to that process.
> > Caveat: There is a remote possibility that I may have also voted already
> > but I have no recollection of this and no emailed receipt that I can
> find
> > (for example). I wasn't able to verify this at 11:26pm last night.
> Since all the votes are anonymized and lack time stamping information (in
> order to ensure that votes can't be correlated to individuals) there is no
> way
> for me to tell from the poll data.
> So, if you voted and forgot, then it'll be impossible to detect the
> double-vote.
> > Can I email in my vote?
> Yes, if you do the work to recalculate the Borda counts across all the
> votes.
> Let's see if the other individual wants to cross-check your votes (or we
> have
> another volunteer) and go from there.
> In the meantime, I'll publish the final tallies to the mailing list so we
> have
> them.
> Do you want to proceed with the manual vote process above?
> -- 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/
Received on Saturday, 21 August 2021 16:38:03 UTC

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