Concerns about overlap and ambiguity introduced by PR 22

[csarven]

@ianbjacobs @elf-pavlik

re #22

• What is materially different in this PR from the current contributing guidelines, charter, and other material?
• Why impose new communication rules when existing norms already govern discourse?
• What specific problem has arisen that justifies this new layer?

I think the three examples below illustrate why the PR is unnecessary or conflicting:

1. The Solid Contribution Guidelines include a section on work items and a step-by-step process for proposing a new work item. (Background: This process was inspired by and adopted from the CCG's ).

2. The Solid CG Charter contains authoritative content, e.g.:

As per W3C structures for groups and W3C Process, the Community Group will maintain its focus on incubating technical reports, prototyping software, and testing implementations within the Scope of the charter, with the aim of advancing mature works to the W3C Recommendation track in a Working Group.

Is the CG Charter unclear or disputed?

3. As you know, there is extensive W3C documentation on CGs and their outputs, e.g.:

• https://www.w3.org/community/about/
• https://www.w3.org/standards/types/
• https://www.w3.org/guide/process/cg-transition.html
• https://www.w3.org/guide/standards-track/#has-the-proposed-spec-been-incubated-to-reasonable-maturity
• ...

The PR seems to introduce either conflicting or unnecessary content. Existing documentation should be updated instead with whatever is deemed to be new or more suitable.

[elf-pavlik]

I agree that those two documents need reconciliation with existing documents. There is also additional work that needs to be done, for example some of the details in current documents is mostly relevant for CG chairs and can be separated from what is relevant for all participant, mostly to avoid bloat.

What specific problem has arisen that justifies this new layer?

There have been multiple situations where ideas of CG participants received premature critique and possibly discouraged the originator from exploring it further. One of the early responses was: A safe space for hack-and-tell
I also see some longer term misconception about formal status of CG reports, including the controversy around

• Reflect WG independence in charter. solid/solid-wg-charter#47

This text tries to focus on those specific issues. I will also create issues for other references including
https://github.com/w3c-fedid/Administration/blob/main/proposals-CG-WG.md

This work can happen in this repository, in a transparent manner with everyone interested having opportunity to participate.

[elf-pavlik]

I also already presented this development during recent Solid World and it should be tracked somewhere in this repository.

[csarven]

Thanks but I still see key issues unaddressed.

You acknowledge overlap, yet instead of resolving redundancy, the PR introduces an additional process layer. While you suggest the goal is to separate guidance for chairs vs participants, the proposed framework clearly directs participant behaviour. That seems inconsistent.

You also reference solid/solid-wg-charter#47 as part of the motivation, but haven't shown how the proposed framework in PR 22 addresses what happened there. This is especially important given the existing CG documentation already outlines work item processes and participation norms. If the concern is about gaps or confusion, it's unclear why those couldn't be clarified by updating existing material.

On PR 47 specifically, here's what occurred:

1. The PR was created and merged by three individuals who weren't CG chairs or active meeting participants, but had repo access.
2. It was merged just 28 minutes after being opened.
3. The CG was not consulted.
4. The charter was still under horizontal review at the time!

You referred to this as a controversy. Could you clarify what issue you're pointing to, and how the framework in PR 22 would have prevented or mitigated it?

Do you believe that kind of coordinated misbehaviour and bypassing CG input, was appropriate? If not, what would you consider an appropriate response?

As context: PR 47 was reverted after being merged. I (as then CG chair), made that revert, and I'm happy to explain the reasoning behind it - though it was already publicly acknowledged and agreed upon as necessary within the CG. Let me know if that context would be helpful to your goals.

PS: Thanks, but Solid World is not a W3C (Solid CG) workspace.

[elf-pavlik]

You referred to this as a controversy. Could you clarify what issue you're pointing to, and how the framework in PR 22 would have prevented or mitigated it?

Do you believe that kind of coordinated misbehaviour and bypassing CG input, was appropriate? If not, what would you consider an appropriate response?

I didn't meant the process of merging this PR, I meant the issue that PR was intending to address. From solid/solid-wg-charter#47 (comment)

[@pchampin:] My understanding is the current text makes it look like the WG would be subordinated to the CG which is not the intention of the text and not the way WG should work under W3C

I see the previous version of the charter text, which this PR was amending, as an example of confusion what the role of CG is and how the work flows between CGs and WGs.

---

You acknowledge overlap, yet instead of resolving redundancy, the PR introduces an additional process layer. While you suggest the goal is to separate guidance for chairs vs participants, the proposed framework clearly directs participant behaviour. That seems inconsistent.

I didn't mean that #22 intend to address issues to what I would consider a bloat in

• https://www.w3.org/community/solid/charter/
• https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md

There is a lot of useful information in there, at the same time if someone actually reads all of it, including details of CG chair election and recommendation to use emojis in git commits, they may miss few main bullet points that we would like to make sure that everyone keeps in mind so that we can all stay on the same page. I don't have a clear answer at this moment, maybe we just need TL;DR on top and all the rest can serve as the reference that people can look up as they pick up an more aspects of CG participation.

When it comes to CGs <=> WGs dynamic there is very little detail in existing documents.

[csarven]

Your reply again avoids the core issue. You're framing PR 47 as stemming from confusion about CG-WG boundaries. But the problem wasn't confusion - it was unilateral action without CG consensus!

No one involved in merging PR 47 consulted the CG. No effort was made to clarify the supposed confusion with the group. No discussion, no heads-up - just a 28-minute PR merge by a small group with repo access and no formal role in the CG process. That behaviour isn't addressed by adding guidance about proposal stages or soft norms for participants.

You're now defending those misbehaviours by implying it came from misunderstanding. But misunderstanding doesn't justify bypassing group process. The lack of accountability around that event is precisely what erodes trust, not the absence of more guidance on how to frame new ideas.

Under normal circumstances, folks that are confused about someone else's text, would ask them for clarification, instead of barging in with a change that suits their needs.

If you don't wish to acknowledge these facts, please say so.

---

See solid/solid-wg-charter#48 (review)

Again, the W3C Recommendation Track Readiness Best Practices (BP) is the document in particular that can be of help here. The current text in the proposed Solid WG charter:

The Working Group will not adopt new proposals until they have matured through the W3C Solid Community Group or another similar incubation phase.

is derived from the document referenced above:

The Working Group will not adopt new proposals until they have matured through the Web Platform Incubator Community Group or another similar incubation phase.

[..]

I find the proposal in this PR inadequate because it goes in the opposite direction, i.e., it weakens what's intended by W3C with respect to incubation, and does not actually address the ambiguity highlighted by a few individuals.

As agreed, we can certainly provide further clarification on what qualifies as "matured." To achieve this, we need to focus more on the incubation criteria as mentioned in the BP (see the questions under "Readiness Criteria"), in particular "empirical criteria", and to adopt something similar to determine when a spec under incubation is ready to propose to a Working Group.

Until such documentation is in place, I believe the existing text in the WG charter is sufficient. It is adequately clear for active CG participants, and W3C staff, as well as well-informed AC representatives, are already acquainted with W3C charters, processes, and related matters. The WG can apply the criteria in the BP to assess readiness.

and later solid/solid-wg-charter#48 (review) :

I'm glad we came full circle after much bikeshedding (and unnecessary detouring) where the end is result is essentially equivalent to was acknowledged with the obvious context when the original text was introduced back in 2023-04. 🤷

We of course pretended that those PRs saved some people face but we all know what really happened.

[elf-pavlik]

I think WG charter PR 47 ended up being a red herring here, I was hoping it will provide an example of why flow of work between CGs and WGs needs to be further clarified.

---

I propose that we refocus on addressing you initial concerns

I think the three examples below illustrate why the PR is unnecessary or conflicting

The Solid Contribution Guidelines include a section on work items and a step-by-step process for proposing a new work item. (Background: This process was inspired by and adopted from the CCG's ).

I already have some notes about proposing a new work item
One of the first issues would be to reconcile that specific section, and short paragraph from the charter linking to it, with the framework-for-proposals draft. I think the diff is pretty significant and that proposing a new work item only overlaps with a part of the framework for proposals.

In that issue, besides FedCG/WG process proposal I will also link to New W3C-CCG Work Item Process (DRAFT IN PROGRESS)

The Solid CG Charter contains authoritative content, e.g.

If we take a look at the text you quoted from the charter, and the short list of principles, I find the later conveying desired message in a clearer and more concise manner. I see value in working on it in this form first before trying to reconcile it with the CG charter.

[csarven]

It's still unclear to me why there's no direct acknowledgment of the behavior surrounding PR 47.

To clarify: you were the one who introduced PR 47 as relevant. I only responded to point out that the issue wasn't confusion. It was a matter of process being bypassed without consensus.

Returning to PR 22, the core concerns in my original comment remain unaddressed:

• What is materially different from existing guidance?
• What problem does this solve?
• Why impose new rules on participants without group consensus?

You've acknowledged overlap with existing documentation but are still proposing a new layer, which risks conflict rather than clarity.

You've also referred to the CG Charter and Contribution Guidelines as "bloat" without:

• identifying what specifically is excessive or unclear
• proposing concrete improvements to the existing documents
• demonstrating how the proposed text is more suitable
• ensuring alignment with current CG or W3C practices
• providing evidence that this additional layer improves participation

The existing documents were developed transparently, with input and precedent, and are aligned with similar groups, e.g., CCG Charter.

Calling that "bloat" while offering no clear improvements or justifications feels less like problem-solving and more like reinventing for its own sake.

[elf-pavlik]

What is materially different from existing guidance?

Both format and content, there is certain level of overlap which I acknowledged needs reconciliation.

What problem does this solve?

It aims to address, to be seen if it does, dynamics in CG that hinder participants efforts.

Why impose new rules on participants without group consensus?

New drafts clearly state that they don't represent a rough consensus. The intent is to iterate on them to start moving closer to it.

You've also referred to the CG Charter and Contribution Guidelines as "bloat" without: * * * * *

I would prefer that we address it in systematic way through a series of issues and PRs
My main point is that I see it problematic to try reconcile the text from #22 first, rather than a)0working on it in its current form; b) ensuring that relevant parts of existing text are taken into an account; c) reconcile editorial formats later;. Meanwhile we can also keep working on the rest of the existing text in parallel which can make reconciliation down the road simpler.

[csarven]

You are essentially saying that PR 22 is experimental / aims to address CG dynamics, but most of it doesn't actually prevent the behaviours you're concerned about. (Just as it wouldn't have prevented the misbehaviour as observed in PR 47.)

As you've found out:

There have been multiple situations where ideas of CG participants received premature critique and possibly discouraged the originator from exploring it further.

But the W3C Conduct already lays the expected/acceptable/unacceptable behaviours that's already in affect in the CG. Evidently, it hasn't stopped concern trolling, sealioning, gish galloping argumentum ad nauseam etc.

In any case, the PR 22 doesn't seem to bring anything to do the table here.

What I'm trying to say is that there is already material - far better than the one you've assembled together IMO. What you need is a movement towards cultivating a healthy community over time. Have a look at the following for some ideas:

solid/specification#576

That includes chair training.

[ianbjacobs]

I support multiple efforts to strengthen the community, including the ideas in the draft proposal.

Thank you for pointing to the Solid Technical Reports Contributing Guide. My impression is that, by design, it focuses on contributor actions. The draft proposal blends guidance for both contributors and others in the group. So there might indeed be some overlap between the two documents (to be managed). But there does seem to be room for guidance to the group as a whole.

The CG charter says "In general, all documents in scope of the group are welcome. If there are individuals who will commit to being editors for a document, the group should agree to accept it as a work item even if it conflicts with previous work adopted by the community." I read the proposal as providing an operational approach to support that expectation. It might be useful for the proposal to refer to that provision in the charter as a starting point.

The proposal seeks to create a systematic approach to handling new ideas. It does not seek to prevent unacceptable behavior, which is the role of the code of conduct. I agree that W3C needs to provide more chair and participant training, and bolster resources to support the code of conduct (coordinated by the Positive Work Environment Community Group.)

[elf-pavlik]

I would like to pick up on this work in January once we go through new chair election
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2025Nov/0000.html