Chair's overview - 2024W06

Hello all,

Back with another “chair’s overview” - more about these in our CONTRIBUTING.md [1] file.

Having just merged #52 and #56, I’m happy to report that we currently have zero PRs open. This is a good thing as it demonstrates that we can, indeed, make actual progress and that our process is helping us move forward. It’s time to open new ones, aiming at bridging the gap between the current working draft and #37 [4]. I had meant to do so in the last 7 days but other matters took precedence.

As for issues, I kindly ask all participants to have a look at #20 [5] and #54 [6] and comment with their strong objections, if any at all. Alternatives to move forward have been discussed but it’s hard to make a decision without a clear understanding of which and how many strong objections there are (if any). 

As a last item for this overview, I am afraid I must bore you with a lengthy-er elaboration on consensus and trust. Recent conversation, mostly in #58 [7], is peppered with statements such as “you have consensus” and “you don’t have consensus”. These statements don’t make much sense.

Using the definitions given by the W3C Process Document [8], to which our process [1] defers to, we define consensus as substantial support accompanied by, at most, abstentions. We also define dissent as any amount of consensus in the presence of sustained objections. Lastly, we define unanimity as pure support with no abstentions and objections - the highest form of consensus.

Therefore, it is important for the group to understand that consensus is not something I can ever have, gain or loose. As chair, consensus is something I need to look for and foster. Consensus, which I’ve been tracking in #37 [4], is that towards which I must orient my activity as chair and editor.  

What I can have, may be given to me and ultimately taken away from me is trust, trust that I'll adequately and appropriately foster, interpret, assess and enact the consensus of the group. While there is definitely no unanimity around the MUST on Turtle and JSON-LD, there is definitely some consensus. Not only there is consensus but it is the proposal that has managed to accrue the largest consensus to far, though sadly still not achieving unanimity.

Quoting from “managing dissent” [9]:

> In some cases, even after careful consideration of all points of view, a group might find itself unable to reach consensus. The Chair may record a decision where there is dissent so that the group can make progress (for example, to produce a deliverable in a timely manner). Dissenters cannot stop a group’s work simply by saying that they cannot live with a decision. When the Chair believes that the Group has duly considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible and reasonable, the group should move on.

As chair, I recognize and accept that, while I must always aim for unanimity, that is not always possible to achieve and it is in the best interest of the group for me to move forward in its re-iterated absence, provided of course that substantial consensus is there in the first place.

For me, the above is not up for discussion. I cannot function as chair if the group believes that unanimity is the only way forward. What is always up for discussion, however, is the chair themselves. I’m happy to step down and let someone else move things forward if the group would rather operate by unanimity alone.

Give it some thought, it’s important for these concepts to be well understood and accepted by everyone if I am to chair.

Best,
Jacopo.



[1]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md
[2]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pull/52
[3]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pull/56
[4]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/37
[5]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/20
[6]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/54
[7]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/58
[8]: https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20231103/#consensus-building
[9]: https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20231103/#managing-dissent

Received on Monday, 5 February 2024 08:40:09 UTC