W3C Process Document does not define method of disclosure for affiliations

[ThisIsMissEm]

Describe the bug affecting interpretation of the document

I have recently received a grant from Bluesky Social PBC, and as part of that I notified the FedID Working Group Chairs and Staff contact of that change in conflict of interest disclosure. However, as a person working within the W3C the process for what I need to do to disclosure in accordance with Section 3.1.1.2. Conflict of Interest Policy was not clear.

Further, I had a conversation with the Social Web CG, who are not at all covered by this grant and my work there has no relationship to the grant, and some people wanted disclosure of my affiliation.

I could not find the documented process for disclosure of affiliation or conflict of interest for Community Groups, and there isn't a process from that CG that I can see.

Further more, when I did update my W3C profile to specify an affiliation, it misrepresented the nature of my affiliation in a way that is not compatible with the legal terms in my grant: It made it look like I was an Employee or Consultant of Bluesky Social PBC, and I am explicitly prohibited from making any such declaration like that.

The issue comes from the presentation when joining a CG, as I just did with the Process CG:

This clearly states that I'm an employee or representative of Bluesky Social PBC, and that is absolutely not the case, per the contract clause cited above. I'm more than happy to privately share the complete contract with the W3C Staff if necessary.

I think the form for declaring affiliations should be multiple organisations (one or more), and the type of relationship should be declared: employee, contractor, consultant, investor, shareholder, or grant recipient, and then that type of relationship is displayed along side the affiliation.

The should also be a written process for what disclosure means. Is it just an email to the affected WG's chairs and staff contact (if so, I've done that). Do I need to disclose to unrelated W3C groups to the work that my grant is for? If so, how do I do that disclosure? Email to Staff Contact + Chairs? Email to the public mailing list? What is the process I need to follow here?

Thanks!

[ThisIsMissEm]

When I changed that affiliation, it also booted me out of every CG and maybe WG that I'm in. That is a terrible design pattern and completely unexpected. The form above does not say that will happen.

[bumblefudge]

I would also mention that grants aren't mentioned, only employment and contracting/consulting, but a good portion of W3C is supported or sponsored by academic, government, and/or private-sector grants. Some of my own W3C work has been funded by grants, and I never knew where/how to disclose this for COI (or just for cultural/trust) reasons...

[chaals]

This might be indicative of a more general issue. Historically W3C itself has had grant funding making up a chunk of its overall revenue.

(I suspect being booted from multiple groups is an implementation bug rather than a design feature).

[frivoal]

I agree something isn't right, and I think the problem with disclosures is even broader than what you are shining a light on (e.g. there are a number of disclosures made to the Team only. What do they do with it? Shouldn't other participants have some information about affiliations and (potential) conflicts of interest?). Sorting out exactly what needs to change might be… interesting:

• the Process lays down rules that must be respected, but in the interest of length and timelessness, is deliberately silent on the exact details of how things are implemented.
• https://www.w3.org/guide (which needs far less formality to update) contains a more information about the specifics
• the Process does not apply to CGs at all, who are governed by a separate document: https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/
• The tooling in place has its own take on things (with the expectation that they conform to https://www.w3.org/policies/process/ and https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/ where applicable, and they are aligned with what https://www.w3.org/guide says about them)

I have not yet though through it, but this case might call for fixes in more than one of the above. Maybe all.

In the short term, I think the path of least resistance is to declare yourself unaffiliated (or affiliated with yourself/your own contracting company), with the grantor / consulting clients being disclosed in plain text, but not announced as affiliation. That said: (a) even if this is the right approach, it's not made obvious than it is (b) I think this is well supported by existing definitions and Processes if you have multiple clients / grantors; when you have only one, it becomes fuzzier.

[ThisIsMissEm]

(b) I think this is well supported by existing definitions and Processes if you have multiple clients / grantors; when you have only one, it becomes fuzzier.

Right now I have one IE @ one WG and one grant to cover that work. I may in the future have one nlnet grant for a CG taskforce I lead. I also receive ~€21,000 in community donations