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

Do you have a substantive issue with the decision rather than an issue with
how it was made?  It can be very efficient to allow chairs, authors and
other folks who signed up for significant work and involvement to just get
on with the work.  Then if there are questions they can explicate reasoning
at that point (rather than with EVERY step forward); and if there is
dissent chairs can work towards consensus at that point.

I do not believe that explaining the decision-making process for every
process decision is desirable or necessary; it will turn off volunteers and
exhaust readers.

Lisa

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 5:51 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>