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

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 Monday, 5 February 2024 15:24:47 UTC