To add: I think some people are confused about whether they are members of the CCG for these reasons:

• CCG member vs mailing list recipient
• DID WG member vs CCG member

Heard from an anonymous CCG member:

The criteria for voting membership should be tighter solely the CCG membership, along the lines of attending at least 3 calls over the last 3 months (or maybe also 9 over the past 9 months) to remain in good standing. I worry about ballot stuffing by those who do not fully participate.

One thing I like about this idea is that it is in our control, unlike the knowing the details of the CCG membership which is under W3C control and can't be easily changed. We already have tools that filter the meeting transcripts for attendees using the +present tag. With that data we can know who has attended regularly.

We can even automate the "scribe" list, moving people to bottom when they scribe, but also remove them from the scribe list if they have not attended for a long time.

Another advantage of this is that we can do something more to encourage scribing, such as having scribed at least once a year to be in good standing to vote, or offer other incentives.

-- Christopher Allen

from dupe: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10vsEEzy901C7XOpqziqOUaKL_uo41_hV0lJkOYEuLI8/edit

From another tracking issue:

Two items came up in the vote process.

1. What is the cutoff for joining? Current position: when the election date is announced
2. What is a "member". Company level or individual? Current position: individual

Worth discussing and proposing to the group.

We have some proposed updates to the charter here by @vmwvmw and we're ready for some public comments & feedback. If you are interested in this process, please review and leave comments here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YJ2kPg_zzR8oINq9MDf6KcAma21OJtmwAENjzzHe-iA/edit

• Send this to the list to get it reviewed
• Discuss on our next meeting Jan 5.

We will discuss at 1/6/2021: 10am PT / 1pm ET meeting. Details: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2020Dec/0208.html

Participation in the CCG comes in many forms - not just attendance at meetings.

For example, I consider myself an active member of the CCG through my involvement in the mailing list and github - but I am unable to attend most meetings due to conflicts. Should I be unable to vote because of that?

Great point @lrosenthol. To address this point, we've added the following language:

A voting member of the Community Group is an individual member of the Community Group who has attended at least 25% of the Community Group public teleconference calls over the 6 months prior to the date of the announcement of the election, which will also be the record date on which voting membership is determined. Attendance is counted through the list of attendees present on meeting transcripts through the “present+” function on the public teleconference calls. A single meeting tally may be substituted by each instance of the following evidence of meaningful CCG contributions: (a) per each role served as owner for active work items or (b) three messages of substance, as determined by the chairs, within 30 days on the CCG mailing list, not to be recounted.

Does this work for you?

This reads like it would require attendance of the least 7 of the last 26 meetings (52 weeks / 2 / 4) OR 21 (7 * 3) substantive posts or issues over 6 months.

Still seems a lot. Even @lrosenthol might be challenged depending on what qualifies as substantial. Do replied to posts or issues count? Would this as a reply count?

Related, I suggest you do the math and show the totals (eg 7 meetings or 21 posts or issues over 6 months , or a mix of) rather than the more obscure 25% and 3 substantial posts counts as one meeting.

@jandrieu you make good points about inclusivity, and certainly I support inclusivity. However, I'm curious how your proposed approach would address an influx of users prior to an election or vote who have joined the community group with the sole intent to "pack the vote", without any other contributions.

Imagine if a community member was unhappy and requested their 100,000 Twitter followers to join the CCG, sign the collaborators agreement, and then vote a certain way in an upcoming election. If we impose a time delay, these followers may simply lie in waiting to vote as instructed, without contributing to the CCG as many other members do while enjoying the same governance privileges. Do you think we should allow this behavior or am I missing something?

@wyc I fear the former US president has you thinking about extreme abuses of process that we'd have to guard against. ;)

In general the stricter proposed measures seem more likely to alienate "real" members (e.g. @lrosenthol) than ward off real threats.

I'll assume this obvious straw man is just for discussion purposes; but to state the obvious, yes, let's everyone here is reasonable and wants to avoid the 100K twitter follower scenario case. Moving forward, how can we balance those concerns with the concerns like Leonard and @jandrieu mention?

@kimdhamilton I cannot deny that I am likely biased by recent events--thanks for pointing that out.

I am further agreed that we should err on the side of not alienating membership that have made contributions. Perhaps 6 of any of the following actions over the past 12 months:

• Coherent mailing list posts over 140 characters
• Weekly meeting attendances
• Github commits against CCG repos

@kimdhamilton do you think this a good compromise?

Heard from an anonymous CCG member:

The criteria for voting membership should be tighter solely the CCG membership, along the lines of attending at least 3 calls over the last 3 months (or maybe also 9 over the past 9 months) to remain in good standing. I worry about ballot stuffing by those who do not fully participate.

One thing I like about this idea is that it is in our control, unlike the knowing the details of the CCG membership which is under W3C control and can't be easily changed. We already have tools that filter the meeting transcripts for attendees using the +present tag. With that data we can know who has attended regularly.

We can even automate the "scribe" list, moving people to bottom when they scribe, but also remove them from the scribe list if they have not attended for a long time.

Another advantage of this is that we can do something more to encourage scribing, such as having scribed at least once a year to be in good standing to vote, or offer other incentives.

-- Christopher Allen

@ChristopherA @jandrieu I'm confused on the push back for tighter requirements, since @wyc specifically used the feedback in this thread to guide the changes. Take a look at the first two comments by @ChristopherA. Are you saying you do not want tighter restrictions which would go against the anonymous concerns that @ChristopherA commented above? If that is the case, how would you address those concerns or would you ignore them?

The charter amendment specifically addressed these concerns, but now we're hearing you don't want restrictions and want it open like it was before.

@kimdhamilton the ballot stuffing scenario was a legacy concern from the last election and is mentioned in the first comment on this issue as well as the one I quoted here. If that is no longer an issue, we can remove addressing it as a requirement.

@wyc -- I like the direction, but some of them seem hard to measure and may cause unnecessary complications in their specificity, e.g. "Coherent mailing list posts over 140 characters" -- why 140 characters? who gets to decide "coherent"?

Curious what @ChristopherA and @jandrieu think based on their experience. In general, we tended to optimize for the most likely scenarios, thinking that if we had to worry about some extreme case it would be dealt with in other ways (e.g. appeal processes). So establishing metrics like this makes me wonder if we're going in the right direction.

Thanks for the feedback @kimdhamilton. I'm open to dropping the possibly subjective criteria, such as character count or "coherent"-ness. An appeals process sounds like a fine way to proceed without requiring us to define all exceptions upfront--but who then would determine the outcome of the appeals? I'm reluctant to bring W3M into this due to their already heavy workload, but it could be an option for exceptional circumstances. Perhaps we could even ask W3C Advisory Committee members if, e.g., a mailing list post is "on topic" or "off topic" participation with respect to the CCG charter. Looking forward to more feedback from Chris & Joe as well.

As an infrequent, frequently terse and more frequently incoherent contributor, I thank @kimdhamilton for sticking up for my addled brethren 😆

That's why you must have a clear, unambiguous date by which eligibility is set, and that such a date must be as free from meddling as possible. This was an unfortunate oversight in the drafting of the current charter.

+1. And thanks for the reminder of the concerns we were trying address at the time. Last election we thought of the concern too late, meaning we had to pick a date in the past, and some votes went uncounted as a result.

Per the 1/27 conversation, the community decided against considering anonymous comments as principle objections. @wyc will revise the charter amendments to address the objections in this thread.

Hi @jandrieu @kimdhamilton @ChristopherA @lrosenthol

I've simplified the voting eligibility criteria to this:

Any member of the Community Group who has also accepted the W3C Community Contributor License Agreement (CLA) as part of the enrollment process is eligible to vote on elections, charter amendments, and other community matters so long as they have completed enrollment by the date that the chairs announce those events to the public mailing list.

Could you please indicate a confirmatory response if this addresses your concern? This would help us move along.

Could you please indicate a confirmatory response if this addresses your concern? This would help us move along.

+1

+1

The 2 week period has passed without strong objections and we have addressed the concerns above and also across the mailing list. I will publish this to the CCG website shortly and that should resolve the issue.

Resolved