[MINUTES] W3C Credentials CG Call - 2021-01-06 12pm ET from W3C CCG Chairs on 2021-01-06 (public-credentials@w3.org from January 2021)

From: W3C CCG Chairs <w3c.ccg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 11:27:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5ff60f2d.1c69fb81.6e45b.a858@mx.google.com>

Thanks to Manu Sporny and Charles E. Lehner for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-01-06

Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2021-01-06

Agenda:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2020Dec/0208.html
Organizer:
Heather Vescent and Wayne Chang and Kim Hamilton Duffy
Scribe:
Manu Sporny and Charles E. Lehner
Present:
Heather Vescent, Mike Prorock, Charles E. Lehner, Amy Guy, Brian
Munz, Wayne Chang, Kerri Lemoie, Adrian Gropper, Taylor Kendall,
Dmitri Zagidulin, Manu Sporny, Ryan Grant, Phil Archer, Juan
Caballero, Joe Andrieu, Erica Connell, Ted Thibodeau, Kaliya
Young
Audio:
https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-01-06/audio.ogg

<mprorock> happy new year @manu
<manu_sporny> happy new year @mprorock ... all! :)
Heather Vescent: Hi all, welcome to a new year call! [scribe
assist by Manu Sporny]
Heather Vescent: We're going to focus on the upcoming election
on the call today -- some action items. [scribe assist by Manu
Sporny]
<manu> heathervescent goes over the IPR agreement announcements.
Heather Vescent: Note that some people hadn't joined CCG yet,
signed IPR agreement, please become official member of CCG to
vote in election. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Heather Vescent: Minutes are posted on our website [scribe
assist by Manu Sporny]
Manu Sporny is scribing.
Heather Vescent: I updated all of the old meeting notes and
audio - everything should be up to date now.
Heather Vescent: We use chat -- Jitsi chat or IRC is fine.
Heather Vescent: In IRC -- type q+ to add yourself to the queue,
you can add a note, example: "q+ to talk about cats"
Heather Vescent: We will acknowledge you to speak, please be
brief so others can speak, you can always q+ again. This meeting
is held by voice, not IRC, offtopic conversation is subject to
deletion from the record.
Heather Vescent: Any volunteers for scribe?
Heather Vescent: Scribe list:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LkqZ10z7FeV3EgMIQEJ9achEYMzy1d_2S90Q_lQ0y8M/edit#heading=h.ngyk8y939osi
<rhiaro> I encourage anyone who hasn't done it before to try
scribing, you don't have to be perfect and any typos will be
corrected by others!
Charles E. Lehner is scribing.
Heather Vescent: Time to do intros and reintros
... anyone on call to do intro/reintro. can q or pipe up
Charles E. Lehner: Hi Charles Lehner, working at Spruce now.
[scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Heather Vescent: Anyone else?
Heather Vescent: Let's move on then. announcements and reminders
Heather Vescent: Announcements:
https://w3c-ccg.github.io/announcements/
Heather Vescent: Only one comin up recently is thoughtful
biometrics workshop that kaliya has mentioned.
Is kaliya on call, or anyone want to mention to speak to that?
juan
<jimstclair> Sorry, where is the link for the IPR? Not sure I
signed
Juan Caballero: Knows url, that's it
Juan Caballero: https://thoughtfulbiometrics.org/
Heather Vescent: Workshop coming up. interesting recently, my
interest in diversity and inclusion
Juan Caballero: https://thoughtfulbiometrics.org/
... w3c blended thie rd&i group with positive work environ work
group. announced office hours
... connect with people from that list
Heather Vescent: Inclusion and Diversity open office hours:
https://www.w3.org/community/idcg/2021/01/05/announcing-inclusion-and-diversity-open-office-hours/
... they are interesting and wonderful people
Manu Sporny: That was interesting, didnt know it happened. what
to expect during office hours?
Heather Vescent: Not sure, to be honest. is your question on
what led to the open office hours, or the blending of the 2
groups?
Manu Sporny: General curiosity. who should show up?
... people running WGs/CGs? or CG members dealing with
diversity challenges?
... who is the intended audience?
Heather Vescent: Good question, don't know as not very involved
with that
Heather Vescent: May be blunt at times, will try to be more
delicate. when became co-chair, wanted to have more blend or
relationship between CCG and D&I group
Juan Caballero: https://w3c.github.io/idcg/office-hours.html
... spent time doing resarch early on to not lean on
POCs/minorities
... concensus structure of the W3C is not necessarily the best
structure for oaddressing inherent biases in the organization.
... i found that group to be interesting and useful. but
ultimately decided not a great resource for me & CCG to increase
D&I in this comm. but continue watching.
<cel> ... why blended: two co-chairs of d&i group getting ready
to step down. leadership overhead -> didn't seem like leadership
would step up
... rather than have the CG go away, it was blended into the
positive work environment group
... part of this is a bit of an experiment to see how it works,
how the W3C can have a moore positive work environment. part of
the inclusion. a prereq for recruiting a diverse community
... otherwise have a cycrle - brign in diverse people
viewpoints, they get chewed up and spit out
... seeming like they have a problem. a well-documented cycle
.. Makes sense to put them together. W3c is still trying to
figure out where it's power is and how to use it
... chairs had discussion
... tried to find practical actions that we could apply in the
CCG that would support
.. Does that answer
Manu Sporny: Yes
Heather Vescent: Talk to folks on office hours. or with me
offline - i can tell you the different folks i've spoken to and
direction for that. but it's a long haul as we are up against
biases we may not be aware of
Heather Vescent: Rhiaro has been to meetings
Amy Guy: Office hours intended for people in underrepresented
communitires who want to get incolved in CCG
Heather Vescent:
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22action%3A+review+next%22
Heather Vescent: We are going to go through community issues.
have a full slate. normally pick 2-3 but have a grouping now
Heather Vescent: My brain works in buckets. put different topic
ideas in different buckets for what they make sense in.
First few issues 174 173, 172, 164, more later - all adjustments
proposed to CCG work item process
... these are proposed CCG-specific requirements for new work
items.
Heather Vescent: 173, 174, 172: These were hidden on another
thread in order to clean up and streamline and not have scope
creep on these issues
... did clean up to close some and have specific work items for
other things
... starting at top. #174
Heather Vescent: #174:
Https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/174
... 172,173,174: initiated from me based on a previous comment.
some best preactices seen in other communities and used myself to
increase diversity, increase leadership, do peer mentoring
... 174: the idea is peer leadership. tech perspective: has
peer programming - experienced and less-experienced developer
team up
... used in leadership situations. not necessarily
mentor-mentee, really meant that the younger (not necessarily age
- less experienced with leadership and wants more) - do
succession training, leadership training
... done in professional and non-professional environments with
success
... brought up as best practice
... for work items
<manu_sporny> only way the community can scale beyond where it is
now.
... next step: create PR to add to work item process. but
before, like a consensus-type attitute. want to bring up and see
if anyone wanted to comment or had issues to discuss
... add to q if you have comments
... don't see any. ifi have comments later, please add to GH.
otherwise will add as PR
Heather Vescent: 173:
Https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/173
... #173. have discussed before. addition of
... Heilmeier Questions
<rgrant> i'd like to offer quiet support for the idea of
mentoring.
... came across during first gov contract 7 years ago. good
process to go through, sit and understand what doing, explain to
other people
... have been using for some more recent work items towards end
of year. based on feedback, initial set of questions about 13 -
not a lot of overhead - to make work item proposers think more
deeply about it
Adrian Gropper: Is discussion and acceptance of work items going
to be a rolling process
Heather Vescent: Can be proposed by anyone in CCG. needs to have
2 people from CCG be co-owners. if no issue by anyone in CCG, can
move forward in CCG as work item
... chairs set up operations in work item repo. can get
involved, but it can be hands-off
Adrian Gropper: Is there an existing queue of work items?
Heather Vescent: Are youa sking for a list of current work
items?
Adrian Gropper: Yes
Adrian Gropper: Before i go through the trouble of adding to an
already interesting queue, i would like to know
Heather Vescent: Work items List:
https://w3c-ccg.github.io/community/work_items.html
Heather Vescent: Here is the list. we also have in github itself
Heather Vescent: Work Items on Github:
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/blob/master/work_items.md
... we have a list of the work items here:
... one thing on my TODO since have been chair: this list of
work items is not fully updated
... it includes a lot of our active ones but many inactive
ones.
... i love to clean up messes. technical documentation messes
... want to review, clean up. some have not any work done in
several years.
... we wanted to, in very friendly manner, check in with the
work item owners
... may archive them.
Manu Sporny: Overall, questions are good because they help
someone proposing a new work item think more deeply about it. i
have some concern about timelines
... understand if no progress, should close down. some specs
where we detectd that have been shutdown.
... which is good in some cases. concerned about things like
the HTTP signature spec. took 7 years, 6 years before started
being used seriously. now it's in the HTTP WG. work started here,
took a long time to mature.
Joe Andrieu: +1 To incubating without deadline pressure.
... i don't know what the thought process is when it comes to
work items like that that might take some time. Linked Data
signatures another example. thoughts? eval process?
Ryan Grant: +1 For incubation
Wayne Chang: What is really the keepalive - ping-pong to keep a
work item alive?
... [lost audio]
... if work item owner is active and responsive, that's a
pretty good baseline
... unless someone feels a string reason for the work item to
not exist
Heather Vescent: The idea is for us to do an audit of the work
items
Phil Archer: +1 On Manu's concern. Things that "are important"
need to have a longer 'time to live'. Progress isn't always
linear.
... it's about checking in with the work items that have not
had any work items. thought process: check in, see if there is
still interest in working on them.
... if there is, will give them time to spin back up. if not,
that's when we would archive it.
... chairs will not archive without touching base with the
owners
... why we have not done it yet. understanding the process to
check in. with each work item. understanding the history
... making sure not mistakenly sweeping under the rug archiving
Heather Vescent: Our role is to support you guys doing really
cool work items. what we want to see happening in 2021.
... want to support a diversity of interesting work items. not
just this group but in relation to other W3C groups, DIF, and
other communities.
... closing out #173. anyone else have questions? also welcome
to comment on the GH item.
Wayne Chang: Comment: orie had similar comment: can figure out
how to compress into 3-5 questions to cover 80% of scope. may be
less intimidating
... for work item creators. my suggestion
<manu_sporny> Like, "my answers may be used as a reason to not
start the work"
Heather Vescent: I did boil it down from 13 to 8. would like to
more, if have suggestions on how without losing too much of them,
feel free to take a crack at it
<manu_sporny> but I don't think that's the intent of the
questions
Heather Vescent: Moving onto the next item. #172
Heather Vescent: #172:
Https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/172
Ryan Grant: I propose we remove the "risks" or reword it to
address downsides for Internet users. The risks to W3C
participants are always the same: spent work hours.
... the reason this came up: in the process of the
infrastructure task force / as the discussion of it was coming
up, chairs were approached for desire to have another task force,
realized did not have documentation of how to create a task force
... another task force issue: #164
Heather Vescent: #164:
Https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/164
Heather Vescent: These both address task force. 164:
documentation regarding task force. never had documentation for
it before, trying to put in place.
... part of requirement is #172 requiring to have a charter.
Heather Vescent: Task Force Guidelines:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QBSskibwdgpE5UCXLA9iYm7jJNEZNhKTZyK7srFuMUc/edit
... chairs have put together draft guidelines ^
... have had a lot of different folks make comments. would like
us to have discussion about this. if have concerns or questions
...
... not perfect, may iterate
... may be rolled into work item process or kept separate
Wayne Chang: Commentary on how task force should evolve forward
... opportunity for anyone in community
... whether OCAPs as on mailing list, or Verificable Requests,
opportunity to have meetings
... with end-goal in mind
... we as chairs and infrastructure maintainers would like to
allow anyone to spawn their own notes, meetings, sessions
.... figure how to provide infra for folks wanting to run task
forces and focus on topic at hand
... so task forces can spawn in and out of existence, cover
ground quickly
Heather Vescent: Task forces being able to accept financial
resources to pay for things. discussion happening on issue
... in past have not had accepting of financial resources for a
task force. but are exploring for infra task force. others have
made request and we were not ready in the past
... trying to set up infrastructure and/or best practices to
support that in the future
Heather Vescent: Comments so far look fine to me
... unless anyone has issue, i have no issue with the comments
made in the document.
... i move to propose that we add this to the CCG work item
process, or however the chairs decide it needs to be dovetailed
with that.
... then cllose 172, 164
... move onto next one, code of conduct in W3C repos.
Heather Vescent: #169:
Https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/169
... asking Brian_Munz
Brian Munz: Pretty simple. navigating in repos. noticed no code
of conduct
... w3c has one in their larger community repo
Brian Munz: My question: would be a good idea to have a code of
conduct in repos
Brian Munz: Can use one that already exists
Brian Munz: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/
Heather Vescent: Seems like fine request to me. reviewing the
license that we just updated
... not sure if the CoC is mentioned. wondering if we can add
it in the license. just a thought.
Manu Sporny: +1 To idea. and to reusing the w3c code of ethics
and professional conduct
... enormous amount of work went into it over years. really
good, we use it for our company. we think it hits the right
balance.
... the WGs already include that.
Mike Prorock: +1 Refernce and adhere to top level
... it might be useful to look at... i think DID WG does this
... may reference it the same way if group likes
Heather Vescent: Making note on the issue.
... add to q if have comments.
Ryan Grant: +1
Heather Vescent: Brian_Munz does that work for you
Brian Munz: Yes. question:
... if we've arrived at using the existing one, how do we
standardize the representation of it within the repos?
Heather Vescent: How would you expect it to be done?
... is it in the hierarchy of the overall CCG, or in the
individual work item repo?
Brian Munz: My question. looking at what large orgs do: it seems
to be in their template. but good to have in the individual ones.
Taylor Kendall: We have referenced this as well and it's very
well done. +1
Mike Prorock: Think standardizing a reference from readme to
CoC, i think manu hit the nail on the head. broad CCG reference
out. also good for individual projects: link to from the readme,
so it is clear and standardized. could potentially solve problems
later, remove ability for people to say "i didn't know"
Manu Sporny: Building off what mike said, i believe we have a
new project github template that people can click on. you can
include it in that.
... +1 on reducing work for everyone to remember
Heather Vescent: Updating the comment with: we can use the
existing for best practice, reference and link, add to new work
item template
... will look into how the working groups do this.
... if anyone comes across it, can pop it in the issue
... addressed question?
Brian Munz: Yes
Heather Vescent: Thanks
... next: infrastructure task force
Heather Vescent: #168: Infrastructure Task Force:
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/168
Wayne Chang: Can give context. lot of stuff going on under the
hood to keep gears turning for CCG. including jitsi, recordings,
notes, other processes
... over time, a lot of great community members have been
stepping up and helping extensively. kudos to everyone involved
... but happening informally. more work items have reliance on
CCG, find appropriate to add transparency.
... propose to stipulate what job is to be done, have open ways
to communicate and be informed
... for infrastructure. e.g. npm repository
... create accountability
... task force should have goal in mind, as Ted mentioned. may
make part of the CCG as a committee.
... kim requested we write a charter . did, got contributions.
revisions.
Wayne Chang:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hlP3Vr2OSUxRAcq6i7abn2Z3tWg1Jc7D69yNiL2836Y/edit#
... scope is defined in the issue and in the charter.
... linked. description of the scope, deliverables. how to
participate - any ccg member.
... not everyone will have secret API keys. will be accountable
to CCG.
... figuring out the community governance element. how to make
sure it will be serving the CCG as much as possible, have full
alignment, but not have to have yes/no on every question
... propose: can have first say, but must disclose to mailing
list
... chairs to exercise judgment on what must be disclosed.
anyone may designate an item as subject to approval
... in event of strong objections. if 2 or more community
members object, escalate to voting. as in chair elections
... add ultimate accountability to community.
... weeks of discussion, what is acceptable, appropriate. think
we have arrived at stable space.
... want to receive additional feedback here or on ML.
... if no objects, can move to ratify this week.
... add to q for comments/feedback
Heather Vescent: Thanks for your work on this work item
Wayne Chang: Kudos to amy for bringing up Open Collective. a way
to transparently manage funds - for intrastructure. so everyone
can see what the money is spent on.
... $2000 committed for this use case.
... if anyone else has contributions in mind, or ways to
propose how to handle finances, happy to receive email
Heather Vescent: #136:
Https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/136
Heather Vescent: Apologies about time. discuss #136
Heather Vescent: Election Charter:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YJ2kPg_zzR8oINq9MDf6KcAma21OJtmwAENjzzHe-iA/edit#heading=h.tivi9i7j8qdr
... learnings from last election that we are addressing in the
charter.
... wayne to run. worked with victoria
Wayne Chang: How do we have a nice aggreeable election process
that is legitimate and everyone can get onboard with. another
google doc
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YJ2kPg_zzR8oINq9MDf6KcAma21OJtmwAENjzzHe-iA/edit
... introduce approval voting: select all the options you
approve of. we pick the most-approved options.
... how do we have a better stipulation on what constitutes
voting membership.
... what should be requirements for ccg members to vote in
chair elections?
... in doc proposed 6 months instead of 3
... if folks have ideas, invite commentary: add to q or on the
thread.
... will continue to address items in charter this week. give
final call for reviewer feedback
<dmitriz> what's the functional/game theory difference between
approval voting, versus ranked voting?
... without strong objections, will attempt to make the
amendment.
Heather Vescent: We the chairs would like any issues to these
brought up ASAP. need to have agreement before can move on
election.
Dmitri Zagidulin: Question: since wayne mentioned approval
voting: what's the functional difference between approval voting
and ranked voting - ranked choice runnoff?
Wayne Chang: Need to get back to you. can ask on thread
Heather Vescent: Seen comments on charter amendment. do we need
to leave this open for a week? if no other issues can accept
changes and move forward?
Manu Sporny: +1 To that. think it's fine. have reviewed the
language, looks fine to me. just concerned about amount of work
on chairs to identify eligible voting members. understand why,
concerned about extra work for chairs. hopefully you have a
fairly automated way. feels like something there could be tooling
for
Wayne Chang: Agree. opportunity for more tooling. structured on
github already. with infrastructure task force taking load off,
chairs could be freed up to build tooling for or automate more.
Ryan Grant: Here is electionscience.org on voting: All voting
methods can exhibit problems, but their frequency and severity is
particularly pronounced with RCV. RCV also makes it so you can
sometimes harm a candidate by ranking them better and help a
candidate by ranking them worse. Again, there’s the spoiler
issue. There’s also RCV’s squeezing out of moderates even when
they’re clearly the best winner.
Ryan Grant:
https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-irv/
Heather Vescent: A concern from the last election
Wayne Chang: What does 6 month look like, what do meaningful
contributions look like
... how to deliver value
... how to measure contributions
Heather Vescent: Sounds like we may barely get this approved.
may need an additional week to finalize text
Wayne Chang: Will try to get done this week, put in front of
community. item has been outstanding for weeks now. hopefuly wrap
up for chair election
Heather Vescent: Chair election schedule - waiting for this part
to wrap up before moving forward
Heather Vescent: Chairs put together job description
Heather Vescent: Co-Chair job description:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18uPGjBw15i9jLRQ5K4SCwrrGU6zBIB3PpIap17X39fo/edit
... if thinking of running, please reach out
... if want to get leadership experience or get involved, good
opportunity
... existing chairs, espeically kim have done a great job
automating things
... chairs will not be required to do as much operational
infrastructure stuff. to focus on other things
Ted Thibodeau: That ElectionScience article has a definite bias
toward approval voting. In the spirit of equal bias --
https://thefulcrum.us/voting/why-rcv-beats-approval-voting -- and
of (on skim, anyway) less bias --
https://www.commoncause.org/democracy-wire/instant-runoff-voting-irv-vs-approval-voting-av/
... opportunity if you want to start an initiative
... thank you
Wayne Chang: Big things coming in 2021
<tayken> Thanks all! Happy 21
... macro comment: big initiative: reduce requreiment that
chairs have to play devops / support staff. focus on higher-level
tasks. not that chairs shouldn't

Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2021 19:27:58 UTC