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

Big +1 from me on Lisa's observations about efficiency and exhaustion here.
As an active Fediverse software implementer I am (I think) one of the
target audiences for this community group. I read every message on this
mailing list, and I don't participate much because I don't have much to say
about process minutiae or the obvious bad blood between some subsets of
people on the mailing list. Personal opinion incoming: a lot of the
activity in this community group is worrying to me. As someone who
participates (lightly) in standards processes, and as someone who has
a personal
interest in the history of internet standards
<https://write.as/365-rfcs/365-ietf-rfcs-a-50th-anniversary-dive>, my
strong sense is that when a group focuses on process-heavy, top-down
dictation of how work in the group must be done... that group is on a track
to providing little of value to the world.

Myself, I'm a full Jon Postel-style "rough consensus and running code" kind
of person. This is why I think getting an automated test suite up would the
single most important thing this group could enable. I think that burdening
the chairs with very heavy process obligations would be counter to this
goal.


On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, 8:24 AM Lisa Dusseault <lisa@dtinit.org> wrote:

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