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

RE: [VOTE CLOSING TODAY] VC HTTP API Renaming Poll

From: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 00:51:49 +0000
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>
CC: Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>
Message-ID: <MWHPR1301MB20949706DEEF904E2CE95106C3C39@MWHPR1301MB2094.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
[PRINCIPLED OBJECTION #2] As you too often do Manu, you have failed to understand the issue ...you have failed to understand my objection. You have mischaracterized my objection to the detriment of the entire community and the processes we're trying to enact and follow. You have failed to include the text of my objection in your monologue. In your monologue, you have provided diversionary responses (whether intended by you or not - they are not accurate and not helpful to the community).

Here is an exact copy of my original objection for you to reread...

> [PRINCIPLED OBJECTION] I object to the VC HTTP API Renaming Poll being 
> closed based on Eastern time. I believe it should have remained open 
> (regardless of prior notice) for the rest of us in the Mountain and 
> Pacific time zones? ...also Hawaii and Alaska timezones. I propose the 
> poll be reopened until midnight Hawaii time on Sunday August 22, 2021 
> … another few days.

I stand by my original objection until the following corrective actions are in place:
1. There is a short, immediate solution to the specific incident (if there is a reasonable one)
2. There is long term fix to the actual objection I stated (to ensure this scenario never takes place again) i.e. the timezone problem
3. You cease from finding the most extreme, polarizing views on items such as this example.

For example, for someone in a leadership role, IMO, it is not reasonable to immediately and solely suggest that "We would have to throw away all of the votes of the people that voted and re-run an entirely new poll to include your vote." - knowing in advance that this would only serve to inflame the community.

[EXPECTED RESOLUTION #2] Manu, I'm asking you to completely recuse yourself from further involvement with the original objection and this subsequent objection.

Best regards,
Michael Herman

-----Original Message-----
From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> 
Sent: August 21, 2021 10:11 AM
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE CLOSING TODAY] VC HTTP API Renaming Poll

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 Sunday, 22 August 2021 00:52:24 UTC

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