Re: [patcg.github.io] Adding a clear incubation process and flow (#7)

I guess my main concern here is that there are absolutely proposals floating out there that we don't want to think about or need in our orbit and, to the extent that having this other GitHub organization is useful I worry that these proposals coming into a space with no gatekeeping and no method to object will be used as leverage to create activity that we are then forced to moderate in the CG. I fundamentally agree that having a seperate GitHub Org works. I've changed that in this process and proposed an org name to handle it:

```html
<p>Individuals or entities may bring relevant proposals to PATCG for incubation.
PATCG will set up and maintain <a
href="https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts">a separate space</a> with <a
href="https://github.com/patcg/proposals" title="PATCG Proposals
Repository">name and instructions defined in the proposals repository</a>. Any
individual W3C or PATCG member may bring a proposal to that space with the
understanding it will be governed by W3C rules and the <a
href=https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/>W3C Community
Contributor License Agreement (CLA)</a>.
```

and

```html
Documents may enter this space without <a href=#consensus>consensus</a> from the group.</p>
```

I think this fulfills the process that you are looking for here @ekr? 

Is part of the problem calling it "Incubation"? We can call this section "Individual Draft Management" if that works better for people. 

I also think we have a problem managing the view that non-technical press has of proposals that would even enter that space and I think that having a clear requirement for marking the proposals is the best way to resolve that we have right now. So:

```html
The proposal should also have a notice
on the `README.md` file at its base or on the document itself which clearly
states "This document is a draft proposal not currently on track to become a
standard and does not represent an output of the Private Advertising Technology
Community or Working Group."
```

I also think that having some way to eject proposals is useful. I dislike the idea of a zero-moderation space and I think that is ripe for abuse of our time and focus. Being able to define a proposal as in-scope or out-of-scope on the suggested guidelines and adding it to the `proposals` repo is a good way to moderate the space and our focus without preventing authors from collaborating in the space. Until such a decision is made, any proposal is free to enter the GitHub Org, be collaborated on under the CLA, and continue work. 

But I do think that where a proposal cannot meet the very low bar of

```html
<li>address a genuine need for web users, for creators of
 advertising-supported websites, for advertisers, or to support an existing need that may
 be impaired by advancing privacy properties;
<li>provides or could provide acceptable privacy properties for users;
<li>provides or could provide an acceptable web experience for users;
```

I think it makes sense to have an action available, otherwise we would have no grounds to reject a repository even if the space was being used for something out of scope or outright abusive.

I strongly feel that a mechanism by which we might eject a repository from this space is needed and since any such ejection has a chance of being objected to, we need to have a process in place for it. I think that's reasonable? If the process itself is at fault I'd rather refine it then remove it. 

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by AramZS
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patcg.github.io/pull/7#issuecomment-1090937832 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2022 23:57:11 UTC