Re: October 6th Meeting and Calls for WG Scope Contributions [via Social Web Incubator Community Group]

ne 8. 10. 2023 v 21:13 odesílatel James <jamesg@jamesg.blog> napsal:

> The wiki lists all specs from the previous WG. If I missed any, please let
> me know! Note that most specs do not presently have any scope; they exist
> as a placeholder in case anyone has ideas.
>
> The page is for everyone to add to: if you have ideas on scope you would
> like to see included, please add it to the wiki page or otherwise document
> them so that the rest of the CG can see your ideas.
>

I noticed the decision was made privately and unilaterally by the chairs,
which seems somewhat misaligned with W3C's usual transparency in
decision-making.

Additionally, this raises mild apprehensions regarding the potential for
future decisions to be determined in a similar manner, particularly
considering past instances such as the multi-year disablement of this
mailing list. In my view, substantial workflow changes should engage the
wider member base rather than being determined by a select few.

Utilizing more open forums like SocialHub and the FEP process for AP
related items, might align more closely with our shared commitment to
transparent and inclusive decision-making in the future.


>
> Thanks,
> James
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Sunday, October 8th, 2023 at 00:42, Melvin Carvalho <
> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> so 7. 10. 2023 v 16:02 odesílatel James <jamesg@jamesg.blog> napsal:
>
>> As part of our role in facilitating consensus, it is important that we
>> are moving discussions forward productively. Significant discussion has
>> gone on with regard to a prospective WG charter in the mailing list and in
>> meetings but we were lacking a single place where specific points people
>> wanted to action on were aggregated. Many members' support of a WG has been
>> contingent upon conditions being met, a one being a clear, defined scope.
>>
>> The end goal of the CG in advising on any prospective WG charter is a
>> scope that codified the views of the community and that has received
>> consensus. A wiki helps us get closer -- having one collaborative document
>> everyone can refine -- while ensuring participation is open to all members.
>> I provided guidance on how to access the wiki in the initial email
>> announcing the page, although should that not be sufficient I am happy to
>> prepare a primer.
>>
>> If there are objections from the community, we can move to another
>> platform. Working practices can and should change should a mode of
>> documentation hinder the majority of the group's ability to do productive
>> work.
>>
>
> Thanks James. A bit of transparency regarding decisions would be helpful.
> You said "The idea was privately raised by a CG member", but you didnt say
> which member.
>
>
> Regarding the wiki, there seems to be quite a few indieweb specs in there.
> I was wondering if you could give a quick update on the current state of
> indieweb, in particularly 2 questions I have:
>
> - What is the approximate DAU of the indieweb itself
> - Roughly how many devs are active
>
> I appreciate that there is a range of specs that go over and beyond
> indieweb, but it would be good to get a rough ball park of where the
> movement is compared with 6 years ago (by the way I'm a member, and run
> code on my own homepage too :))
>
>>
>> James
>>
>> ------- Original Message -------
>> On Saturday, October 7th, 2023 at 11:50, Melvin Carvalho <
>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> so 7. 10. 2023 v 11:29 odesílatel James <jamesg@jamesg.blog> napsal:
>>
>>> Thank you for your question!
>>>
>>> "The Chairs" represents all Chairs. This distinction is important
>>> because it clearly represents the differentiation between Chairs' personal
>>> perspectives and a notice intended for the group that represents the result
>>> of discussion among Chairs.
>>>
>>> The idea was privately raised by a CG member and, as a result, was given
>>> due consideration. We -- Dmitri, Nightpool, and I -- decided to use the
>>> wiki as a forum for all CG members to share their thoughts on scope.
>>> Agreeing on specific language is easier in a document where everyone can
>>> contribute and collaborate versus a mailing list where it can be easy to
>>> miss points. Our primary concern is ensuring that thoughts on a new Charter
>>> are easy for everyone to navigate.
>>>
>> Thank you for sharing the process and intentions behind the recent
>> actions. A few points could use a bit more clarification for the broader
>> understanding of the group:
>>
>>    1.
>>
>>    *Identification*: Can you share which CG member initiated the idea in
>>    the private discussion?
>>    2.
>>
>>    *Decision-Making Process*: The phrase "We decided" raises some
>>    concerns as the role of the chairs is traditionally to facilitate group
>>    consensus, not to make autonomous decisions. Can you shed some light on how
>>    this decision was reached among the Chairs without group consensus?
>>    3.
>>
>>    *Platform Choice*: The choice of the wiki for drafting the WG, while
>>    collaborative, seems a bit outside of our usual workflow. Could you share
>>    the reasoning behind this choice of platform?
>>
>> Thank you for addressing these points.
>>
>>>
>>> The wiki has been used across the W3C, including by the former Working
>>> Group. The Chairs contacted the W3C team to allow wiki access to all CG
>>> members to contribute. Invitations to contribute to the wiki page were
>>> noted in an email to the mailing list (the one to which you are responding)
>>> and in last week's meeting.
>>>
>>> Let me know if you have any other questions!
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> ------- Original Message -------
>>> On Saturday, October 7th, 2023 at 03:13, Melvin Carvalho <
>>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> pá 29. 9. 2023 v 20:36 odesílatel W3C Community Development Team <
>>> team-community-process@w3.org> napsal:
>>>
>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussions pertaining to
>>>> a prospective Working Group (WG). We have two announcements:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our next community meeting, and;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An invitation to collaborate on scope for a prospective WG on the W3C
>>>> wiki.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> October 6th Meeting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are scheduling a Community Group meeting for Friday, October 6th.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The meeting will be at 11am ET / 4pm UK / 8am PT, and hosted at
>>>> https://meet.jit.si/social-web-cg.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The rough agenda for the meeting is as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Introductions (optional) and community announcements.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IP Protection Note Reminder: (a) Anyone can participate in these calls.
>>>> However, all substantive contributors to any CG Work Items must be members
>>>> of the CG with full IPR agreements signed, and (b); To contribute to Work
>>>> Items: ensure you have a W3 account, and sign the W3C Community Contributor
>>>> License Agreement (CLA).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A discussion on scope for a prospective WG, following on from our
>>>> previous CG meeting, discussions on the mailing list, and contributions to
>>>> the wiki (see below for more information).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Discussion to start a data portability task force that would focus on
>>>> social web data portability (particularly with regard to ActivityPub), and
>>>> the scope thereof.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Discussion on a formal decision making process for the group, following
>>>> on from community discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any other business.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Call to Contribute to Prospective WG Scope
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Chairs have created a new page on the W3C wiki to discuss the scope
>>>> of a prospective WG:
>>>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/WG_Charter_Discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "The chairs have ... "
>>>
>>> Which chairs? Where was the meeting? Who proposed it? Why was this path
>>> taken when the wiki is not a tool in use for most of the group?
>>>
>>> Where is the transparency here?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The wiki page is open to all CG members. You can log in with the same
>>>> username and password you use for your W3C account. Please let the Chairs
>>>> know via a private email if login doesn't work so we can assist you
>>>> directly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WGs have the ability to create technical documents for consideration on
>>>> the W3C Standards Track and to amend existing W3C Recommendations. The
>>>> Chairs have created a "Deliverables" section in which we invite you to list
>>>> any deliverables that you think are appropriate to include in a WG.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you have further notes or comments about the WG Charter discussion,
>>>> please leave them on the page so that we can aggregate as much information
>>>> as possible in one place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Chairs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>> This post sent on Social Web Incubator Community Group
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 'October 6th Meeting and Calls for WG Scope Contributions'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.w3.org/community/socialcg/2023/09/29/october-6th-meeting-and-calls-for-wg-scope-contributions/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Learn more about the Social Web Incubator Community Group:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.w3.org/community/socialcg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>