- From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:27:04 +0200
- To: public-solid@w3.org
(Chair hat on) Hi all, having read this thread: I believe it is always useful to remind ourselves of the expected and unacceptable behaviours as per Positive Work Environment at W3C: Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct [1] and Solid Code of Conduct [2]. https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/cepc-20200716/#expected-behavior : >Treat each other with respect, professionalism, fairness, and sensitivity to our many differences and strengths, including in situations of high pressure and urgency. https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/cepc-20200716/#unacceptablebehavior : >W3C strictly prohibits discrimination, intimidation, harassment, and bullying of any kind and on any basis. In the CG, we need to strive to having a healthy and constructive conversation at all times towards projects, individuals, and organisations. We need to maintain positive energy in our discourse despite the challenges we are facing or ahead of us down the road. I believe the tone in this thread is no longer constructive, so it may be best to continue the conversations elsewhere, with a different disposition. Personal issues between individuals or organisations should be handled in private. If there's a need for Code of Conduct committee to intervene or mediate in a conflict between two or more individuals or organisations, there are ways to get the enforcement committee involved, both on the W3C and Solid Project level [3][4]. The Solid Technical Reports lists CG's Work Items [5]. As it stands, the services and tools mentioned predominantly in this thread are not part of that list. Similarly, it is not covered by the CG Charter [6]. Furthermore, from the point of the CG, there are no reference implementations. The CG does not proclaim an official implementation of anything. We first and foremost work towards enabling the technical (and social) space and definitions that would be necessary to have interoperable classes of products. That aside, and without getting sidetracked here, the CG can pursue having reference implementations that conforms to Solid QA [7], as we well as our expectations for professional and constructive behaviour. I suggest we visit this point in a separate thread/call [8]. Works that are technically or procedurally outside of CG's purview may have their own CoC and enforcement committee. Hence, the CG, and possibly even the Solid Project, may not be the place to settle conflict or make decisions on behalf of anyone. It is both important and useful to reach out to most appropriate bodies to review the situation. On a related note, the Contributing Guide summarises expected ways to communicate both within and outside of the CG [9], including expressing individual views and speaking on behalf of a group. Generally, acting in good faith in accordance with the CG. We can and should strive to better align with works that are in the spirit of the Solid project, and genuinely abide to the CoC. All that said, it is important that we keep an open dialogue, and so I'd like to invite all to join a general discussion within the context of the CG, and with the intention to not get tangled on specific situations, individuals or organisations. Easier said, I know. It looks like it is going to be a great day today! -Sarven https://carven.ca/#i [1] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/ [2] https://github.com/solid/process/blob/main/code-of-conduct.md [3] https://github.com/solid/process/blob/main/code-of-conduct.md#enforcement [4] https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/ [5] https://solidproject.org/TR/#work-items [6] https://www.w3.org/community/solid/charter/ [7] https://solidproject.org/ED/qa [8] https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/574 [9] https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#communication
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2023 13:27:13 UTC