Re: Fwd: Formal Objection to Advancing DID Working Group Charter to AC Review

The latest proposed charter did not receive objections, so this 
objection is now considered resolved.

  see https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/376



On 2/5/2024 10:24 AM, Philippe Le Hégaret wrote:
> This was a message sent to the Team on September 5, 2023.
> 
> (resent here since this is context information for an ongoing Council)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> W3C Staff,
> 
> I am submitting my formal objection to the W3C CEO under the W3C Process 
> 2023 rules as an "invited expert" to the DID Working Group (NOTE: I am 
> not a W3C member) as per the following (quoted below; the highlights are 
> mine):
> 
>      5.5. Registering Formal Objections
>      Any individual*(regardless of whether they are associated with a
>      Member)* may appeal any decision made in connection with this
>      Process (except those having a different appeal process) by
>      registering a Formal Objection with the Team. Group participants
>      should inform their Team Contact as well as the group’s Chair(s).
>      The Team Contact must inform the CEO when a group participant has
>      also raised concerns about due process.
> 
> 
> My primary objection is in regards to the W3C Staff advancing work to 
> the AC without DID Working Group consensus (and denial of an appeal from 
> Joe Andrieu dated April 12, 2023 by W3C Staff Philippe Le Hégaret posted 
> on Jul 26, 2023) and thus my exclusion from consensus in the W3C Process 
> as an Invited Expert to the W3C DID Working Group.
> 
> Secondly, subsequent conversations about the denial of Joe's appeal and 
> discussions about updates to the DID Working Group Charter have been 
> restricted to AC-only participation and polling, thereby excluding me 
> from any further conversation or consensus.
> 
> Also pertinent to this appeal is the email I sent to the W3C on May 4, 
> 2023 (attached below), where I registered my concerns with the current 
> process:
> 
>      Beyond Joe's concerns, in the case of this pull request, we have
>      been told there is a mandate to include standardization of DID
>      methods into the working group charter, but the parties that mandate
>      this inclusion have not been actively involved in the DID WG process
>      in the past, and there is no evidence that they plan to be involved
>      in the future. This lack of active participation raises questions
>      about the legitimacy of their mandate and the potential impact that
>      these objections may have on the future of this standardization 
> process.
> 
>      Furthermore, the fact that the objections are secret (I do not have
>      access to them as I am an "invited expert") makes it difficult for
>      the community to understand and address them fully. It is important
>      for all stakeholders to have transparent access to the objections
>      and concerns that may impact the standardization process in order to
>      have a fair and inclusive discussion and make informed decisions.
> 
>      Thus, any decision that incorporates mandates from parties not
>      involved in the DID-WG community is a bad decision.
> 
> 
> In conclusion, transparency, inclusivity, and collaboration are pillars 
> upon which the W3C was founded. Bypassing these principles not only 
> undermines the trust of technical contributors like myself but also 
> jeopardizes the integrity and effectiveness of the standardization process.
> 
> I sincerely hope that my concerns, detailed above, are addressed with 
> the seriousness and diligence they merit. I look forward to a 
> collaborative resolution that champions the core values of the W3C and 
> ensures all voices are genuinely considered.
> 
> -- [Group particpant]
>

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2024 23:44:33 UTC