Re: Chairing, Superspec, subspecs and WebID 1.0

Context is missing: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/17

This was the issue which led to the super/sub proposal.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, 22:46 Jacopo Scazzosi, <jacopo@scazzosi.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Rather suddenly, I find myself being the chair of this group. I did apply
> in [1] but I actually got promoted (or elected?) almost immediately and
> without notifications of any kind. In fact, this happened so quickly that
> I’d fully understand if any of you were to disagree with it. Please do give
> voice to your objections if any, either here on the list of privately via
> my personal email address.
>
> In my application I stated that my goal would be "turning Nathan’s
> superspec/subspec proposal into WebID 1.0”, and that is what I intend to do
> - or at least have a serious go at it. Nathan’s proposal, first introduced
> in [2], has already gathered a significant amount of consensus and can
> elegantly address many, if not all, of the issues we’ve been debating over
> the years, most of which have been touched upon in [3]. My chairmanship is
> tied to this goal and I plan to relinquish the chair at the end of this
> process, regardless of whether we’ll have succeeded or failed.
>
> As for how to do this, these are my thoughts so far:
>
> 1. Ideally we’d need a new repo, starting from scratch. In practice,
> splitting the conversation between two repositories would be unwise,
> particularly given that the conversation is already split between this
> mailing list and GitHub. I will likely open a new “root” PR for WebID 1.0
> which will act as the “main branch” for all related changes.
>
> 2. Insofar as I have witnessed over the last few years, conversations
> about WebID have a tendency to grow too abstract, too broad in scope and/or
> somewhat polarized. This is perfectly understandable and normal; we see
> things from different perspectives, we are passionate beings and we all
> bring our own experiences to the table. However, these tendencies can, at
> times, hinder our progress and in fact this group has a rather poor track
> record when it comes to making progress.
>
> 3. To counteract these tendencies, I was thinking of iteratively issuing
> RFCs explicitly limited to one comment per participant. The goal of these
> "RFC threads" would not be to invite further discussion but to make it
> possible for me to evaluate everyone’s position, summarize, update
> documents, determine consensus and plan further RFC threads for the
> remaining open points.
>
> 4. RFC threads would complement regular discussion threads, with each
> issue being discussed first and made the subject of an RFC second. I think
> RFC threads would be best managed as issues on GitHub.
>
> 5. I am a firm believer that perfect is the enemy of good, and that
> sometimes settling for “good enough” can make the difference between
> actually getting to the finish line and running out of fuel halfway through
> the race. I don’t like half-baked things, either, but I don’t need
> something to taste **exactly** how I think it should taste to enjoy its
> merits . You’ll see this reflected in my editing efforts and I kindly ask
> you to embrace this philosophy, even if just a tiny little bit.
>
> 6. To maintain balance, wellbeing and productivity in other areas of my
> life I will timebox my involvement in all things WebID so as to keep a
> limited but constant, daily presence. Please feel free to get in touch with
> me privately via my personal email address for anything urgent.
>
> That’s all for now. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. I’ll take the
> weekend to mull things over and will begin working on WebID 1.0 on Monday.
>
> Best,
> Jacopo.
>
> [1]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Nov/0072.html
> [2]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Jul/0056.html
> [3]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/3#issuecomment-1051064330
>
>
>
>