Re: Appeal of the WG Chairs on the draft DiD Working Group charter

On 7/27/2023 12:55 PM, Joe Andrieu wrote:
> I'm saddened to hear that Staff is unwilling to enforce the process in 
> this matter, which states "To promote consensus, the W3C process 
> requires Chairs to ensure that groups consider all legitimate views and 
> objections, and endeavor to resolve them, whether these views and 
> objections are expressed by the active participants of the group or by 
> others (e.g., another W3C group, a group in another organization, or the 
> general public)".

There is also: "In some cases, even after careful consideration of all 
points of view, a group might find itself unable to reach consensus. The 
Chair may record a decision where there is dissent so that the group can 
make progress (for example, to produce a deliverable in a timely 
manner). Dissenters cannot stop a group’s work simply by saying that 
they cannot live with a decision. When the Chair believes that the Group 
has duly considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is 
possible and reasonable, the group should move on."

> In contrast, Staff found that consensus was, in fact, not found by the 
> chairs and endorsed their behavior. Not because the decision embodied 
> the best effort to consider all legitimate views and objections, but 
> rather because, "we reached the conclusion that the best way forward for 
> the Working Group is to submit the charter proposal, in its current 
> state". The record is clear that the chairs, in fact, actively denied 
> that consensus applied and acted with no intention of considering 
> alternative options.
 >
> It is clear to me that Staff has sided with the chairs by refusing to 
> require them to find consensus. There is a consensus available from the 
> options discussed by the WG, the chairs are just refusing to give them a 
> full and equivalent airing in the goal of finding the proposal with the 
> weakest objections. And Staff supported that narrative with a sham poll 
> that failed to even ask the WG about alternatives, something that is 
> required under the Process.
> If we can't count on Staff to follow the Process, then no process can 
> ensure a healthy organization.

You were also surprised by the lack of conversation and your proposed 
options that did not receive much support either. What we wrote is that 
it's best to move the discussion at the AC review level, with the 
understanding that there is a lack of consensus. The Team has extended 
the current charter of the Working Group five times as it is [1] and the 
Working Group has been discussing its charters since September last year.

The charter is not approved but will be simply proposed to the W3C 
Members, and they deserved to be asked at this time. There is actually a 
clearer Process for dealing with formal objections on proposed charters 
during AC reviews, which is why we want to start the AC review.

> I have reached out to David Singer of the W3C Board of Directors to 
> inquire about the board's disposition on this action as it represents a 
> clear violation of Process and thereby our membership agreements.
> 
> I expect the board is fully apprised of this decision, but as yet, no 
> one on the board has shared their interpretation of the situation with me.

The Process document is managed by the Advisory Board, not the W3C Board 
of Directors. I recommend that you redirect your message to them instead.

Philippe

[1] https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/did/charters/

Received on Thursday, 27 July 2023 18:22:49 UTC