- From: Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:07:29 -0400
- To: public-swicg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <c2a551ab-dfe6-f304-78d9-ebd50456df42@prodromou.name>
-1
Thanks for doing this, Ben. In general, I like it, but I have some
details I’d like to see tightened up before I can support it.
* It should be made clear that only members of the SocialCG should be
involved in decision-making processes. The passive language like “if
no sustained objections are raised” makes it sound like non-members
could object.
* Objections or agreement should be clearly labelled as such, with
+1/0/-1 voting. Questions or observations are not objections.
* Splitting the conversation across different communications forms
would make for a lot of missed messages and duplication. Instead, we
should keep any discussions requiring consensus here, on the email
list. Off-list discussions are fine, of course, but it’s not a
“real" objection/agreement unless it happens here.
* The Chairs should have the final decision if consensus has been reached.
* I like this SWIP process, which you created for this proposal. It’s
reasonable, but I’d like to see it defined separately from the
consensus proposal. I think it would be a great test of this
consensus process!
* To adopt this policy, I think we need to adopt it under the current
rules, such as they are, which is by proposal and plus-voting in an
in-person meeting. I think we have one planned for next Friday.
Thanks again,
Evan
On 2023-09-28 8:00 p.m., Benjamin Goering wrote:
>
>
> SWIP-37f2: a policy for calls for consensus on SWICG group decisions
>
>
> Introduction
>
> The Social Web Incubation Community Group is missing an explicit
> decision-making policy, which essentially all other W3C community
> groups have to ensure asynchronous and healthy consensus mechanisms
> across timezones and participatory modes.
>
>
> Proposal
>
> W3C SWICG
> <https://socialweb.coop/SWIP/37f2/a-policy-for-calls-for-consensus-on-swicg-group-decisions/SWICG> will
> seek to make decisions through consensus and due process, per the W3C
> Process Document, §5.2.1 Consensus
> <https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#Consensus>.
>
> To afford asynchronous decisions and organizational deliberation, any
> resolution (including publication decisions) taken in a face-to-face
> meeting or teleconference will be considered provisional.
>
> A call for consensus (CFC) will be issued for all resolutions via
> email to public-swicg@w3.org (archives
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/>). The presence of
> formal resolutions will be indicated by a "CFC" prefix in the subject
> line of the email. Additional outreach to community venues for more
> affirmative consent is strongly encouraged. There will be a response
> period of 14 days. If no sustained objections are raised by the end of
> the response period, the resolution will be considered to have
> consensus as a resolution of the Community Group, i.e. a group decision.
>
> All decisions made by the group should be considered resolved unless
> and until new information becomes available or unless reopened at the
> discretion of the Chairs or the Director.
>
> This policy is an operational agreement per the W3C Community and
> Business Group Process <https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/>.
>
>
> Context
>
>
> W3C Groups with Similar Decision Policies
>
> These community groups and working groups have similar decision
> policies with tentative meeting resolutions and confirmation of calls
> for consensus via email:
>
> * WebAssembly Community Group Charter
> <https://webassembly.github.io/cg-charter/#decision>
> * Credentials Community Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/charter/> (see section
> "Transparency")
> * Web Extensions Community Group Charter
> <https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/main/charter.md#decision-process>
> * Web of Things Interest Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2021/12/wot-ig-2021.html#decisions>
> * HTML Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2022/06/html-wg-charter.html#decisions>
> * Web Platform Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2017/08/webplatform-charter.html#decisions>
> * Web Applications Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2022/04/webapps-wg-charter.html#decisions>
> * Media Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2023/06/media-wg-charter.html#decisions>
> * Web Performance Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2021/02/webperf.html#decisions>
> * Service Workers Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2023/01/sw-charter.html#decisions>
> * Verifiable Credentials Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2022/06/verifiable-credentials-wg-charter.html#decisions>
> * JSON-LD Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2018/03/jsonld-wg-charter.html#decisions>
> * WebAssembly Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2020/03/webassembly-wg-charter.html#decisions>
> * Web Authentication Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2022/04/webauthn-wg-charter.html#decisions>
> * Immersive Web Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2022/07/immersive-web-wg-charter.html#decisions>
> * Web Payments Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2017/08/webplatform-charter.html#decisions>
> * Devices and Sensors Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2022/11/das-wg-charter.html#decisions>
> * Distributed Tracing Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2023/05/distributed-tracing-wg-charter.html#decisions>
> * Web Editing Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2023/09/webediting-charter-2023.html#decisions>
> * Internationalization Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/International/groups/wg/charter.html#decisions>
> * Publishing Maintenance Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2023/06/pmwg-charter.html#decisions>
> * Solid Community Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/community/solid/charter/> (see section
> "Decision Policy")
> * Decentralized Identifier Working Group Charter
> <https://www.w3.org/2020/12/did-wg-charter.html#decisions>
>
> Proposal processes on SWICG Forum with identical response period:
>
> * FEP-a4ed: The Fediverse Enhancement Proposal Process
> <https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/fep-a4ed-the-fediverse-enhancement-proposal-process/1171/1>
>
>
> W3C Community Group Process
>
> W3C SWICG <https://www.w3.org/community/socialcg/> is a W3C Community
> Group (CG).
>
> CGs are described in their process document
> <https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/> as follows (excerpted
> for concision):
>
> This document defines W3C Community Groups, where anyone may
> develop Specifications, hold discussions, develop tests, and so
> on, with no participation fee. …
>
> Community Groups that develop specifications do so under policies
> designed to strike a balance between ease of participation and
> safety for implementers and patent holders …
>
> A Community Group may adopt operational agreements… that establish
> the group’s scope of work, decision-making processes,
> communications preferences, and other operations. …
>
> The following rules govern Community Group operational agreements:
>
> * They must be publicly documented.
> * They must be fair and must not unreasonably favor or
> discriminate against any group participant or their employer.
> * They must not conflict with or modify this Community and
> Business Group Process, the Community Contributor License
> Agreement (CLA)
> <https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/cla/>, or the
> Final Specification Agreement
> <https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/final/>. …
>
> the Chair determines the means by which the group adopts and
> modifies operational agreements. The Chair must give actual notice
> to the participants of any material changes to the agreements.
> Participants may resign from the group if they do not wish to
> participate under the new agreements. …
>
> *Note*: W3C encourages groups adopt decision-making policies that
> promote consensus. …
>
> Each Community Group must have at least one Chair who is
> responsible for ensuring the group fulfills the requirements of
> this document as well as the group’s operational agreements.
>
>
> Related Reading
>
> * IETF RFC7282 On Consensus and Humming in the IETF
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282>
> * Doty, Nick, and Deirdre K. Mulligan. 2013. "Internet
> Multistakeholder Processes and Techno-Policy Standards: Initial
> Reflections on Privacy at the World Wide Web Consortium"
> <http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V11I1/JTHTLv11i1_MulliganDoty.PDF> Journal
> on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 11.
> * Harmonization (standards), en.wikipedia.org
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonization_(standards)>
>
>
> Editorial Notes
>
> The title of this proposal was generated in line with norms
> established by Content addressed vocabulary for extensions
> <https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/content-addressed-vocabulary-for-extensions/539/1>and
> FEP-a4ed: The Fediverse Enhancement Proposal Process
> <https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/fep-a4ed-the-fediverse-enhancement-proposal-process/1171#proposal-title-and-identifier-5>.
>
> |⚡ P='a policy for calls for consensus on SWICG group decisions' ⚡
> echo "SWIP-$(echo -n "$P" | sha256sum | cut -c-4): $P" SWIP-37f2: a
> policy for calls for consensus on group decisions |
>
> The 'SW' in 'SWIP' stands for 'Social Web'.
>
> This proposal was initially published at:
>
> * https://socialweb.coop/SWIP/37f2/a-policy-for-calls-for-consensus-on-swicg-group-decisions/
>
>
> Copyright
>
> CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
>
> To the extent possible under law, the authors of this Proposal have
> waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work.
>
Received on Friday, 29 September 2023 03:07:41 UTC