[patwg-charter] Scope of participation question (#33)

AramZS has just created a new issue for https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter:

== Scope of participation question ==
Per [@jwrosewell](https://github.com/jwrosewell) on https://github.com/patcg/meetings/issues/52 - Scope of participation questions:

> At the moment one would have to follow WICG, PATCG, Privacy CG, PING, Federated Id, IWA BG, TAG reviews, Privacy Taskforce, and numerous IETF groups to contribute fully to the debate. Those working for large organisations will find this easier than smaller ones. A small number of the more active people in this group are fortunate to be able to have a job that provides them the mandate and therefore time to engage so fully across these groups. However they do not represent the majority of participants at W3C or the wider web community.

> All W3C members need to be in a position to understand the boundaries of a group. They do fund them via their membership fees after all. If defined well then members can be certain concerning the likely output from the group. However if defined poorly we find problems. 

I also suffer from this issue and it is difficult. That said, we can and will invite participants in those other groups to present to us, and we will be called upon to present to them. As for review work that impacts the work of a WG... it is not expected that WG participants would all be involved in such work, that would negate the need for a review. When a review occurs, the resulting review would be delivered to us and we would be able to invite the reviewer to speak with us. I'm unclear of what, if anything else, would be needed. As to defining the boundaries of this group... they have been STRONGLY defined at this point and your previous suggested changes would decrease the strength of that definition. We are proposing a very narrow focus: the intersection of privacy and ad technology over the scope of the web and technical systems that touch the web. I'm unclear what else could be done to make that scope narrower and you have, at this time, not presented text that would do so. 

> Most recently the Decentralized IDentifiers (DID) and Payments groups received Formal Objections to their work. Those familiar with DID will likely agree that the charter was the root cause of the issues. i.e. The Formal Objections should have related to the charter not the eventual output of the group. 

While I'm familiar with your formal objections... we cannot handle them at this level. We cannot address them and where they stem from objections to the current structure and process of the W3C we cannot acknowledge them in this context until the larger organization resolves your FOs.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues/33 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2022 15:26:51 UTC