Re: Assessing consensus and our voting process

> On 9. Jul 2023, at 21:18, Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com> wrote:
> 
> Kingsley, Nathan, Jonas, Melvin, Ruben,
> 
> Thank you for stating your preference. I’ll wait a few more days for this thread to circulate and settle. At that point, if nobody objects, I’d be ready and comfortable to move forward with lazy consensus.
> 
> First, voting on the Solid WG handover. Second, voting on my editing. Then the part that I am actually interested in starts - editing the consensus report itself! I’m looking forward to that.
> 
> Some of you believe all this to be too much formality. To those I say, I appreciate your indulging me even more. Believe it or not, I’m ordinarily not one for formalities myself. However, a little formality goes a long way in guaranteeing that an interested party will be able to understand the process behind any specific decision in 1 or 10 years from now.

I am -1 on this.
For the simple reason that it is based on false premises, which I explained in an earlier e-mail today that is archived here: [1]
> 1. progress has not been stalled
>   see github PRs accepted 
>   https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pulls?q=is%3Apr+
> 
> 2. Jacopo made a PR and closed it on feedback that it was too big
>     The suggestion made by many was to move forward with small PRs
>     https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pull/15
> 
> 3. regarding JSon/LD: just propose a PR to the github repo here
>      https://github.com/w3c/WebID/
Your PR 15 was the only one that got closed because it asked for too many changes which
together were challenging to understand, as a few people commented.
Small changes are better.

But if you want to write another document, nothing stops you from doing that.
I would just suggest that you wait for the WG’s to form, as you may otherwise be wasting your
time.

Henry

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Jul/0050.html