W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-council@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Some templates started [Was: Missing op agreement warning]

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:19:55 -0600
Cc: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0AEFBD29-0257-48D9-90C6-04B41246604E@w3.org>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>

On 15 Jan 2013, at 1:54 PM, Young, Milan wrote:

>> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
>> On 7 Jan 2013, at 2:13 PM, Young, Milan wrote:
>> 
>>>> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
>>>> Note: By design, Community Groups have few process requirements.
>>>> This group does not (yet) have a charter that describes its decision
>>>> process,  and as a result, there is limited accountability in how the
>>>> Chair reaches decisions. The Community Group process affords greater
>>>> protections  to those groups that document their decision processes.
>>> 
>>> [Milan] A couple suggested edits:
>>> * Delete your first sentence
>> 
>> Why? I think the second sentence makes less sense without the context.
>> 
>> One could add context back this way:
>> 
>>   Note: This group does not (yet) have a charter that describes its decision
>> process, and because of the lightweight CG process, there is limited
>> accountability in how the Chair reaches decisions.
> [Milan] Replace "Note" with "Warning", and I'll support this.

How about "Caution"?

> 
>>> * Replace "there is limited accountability in how the Chair reaches
>> decisions" with "the Chair(s) have no obligation to consider the opinion of the
>> members or maintain commitments."
>> 
>> Those are overly sweeping statements. There are, for example, licensing
>> commitments over which the Chair has no say.
> [Milan] How about: "the Chair(s) have no obligation to consider the opinion of the members or maintain commitments outside those specifically required by the <link>CG process</link>."

I still believe that is too broad. 

> 
>> I prefer my version.
> [Milan] My first priority is to alert potential participants to the pitfalls which may lie ahead.  I'd prefer this would not cause undue embarrassment to the W3C or the host CG, but I'm not willing to compromise on the first priority.
> 
> I'm getting the sense that you have a different first priority.  If you don't agree with my counter-proposal, perhaps it would make sense to take a step back and first agree on the priorities before proposing more copy.

As I said, my first priority is really the chair selection algorithm. After that, I think this language can be useful, and I support the goal of alerting. It is also my goals to raise awareness while encouraging participation.

Ian


> 
> Regards
> 
>> 
>> Ian
>> 
>>> 
>>>> A quick context reminder here: this text is a small patch. The
>>>> primary change we plan to make regarding accountability (as discussed
>>>> in November [1]) is around Chair selection.
>>> 
>>> [Milan] A small patch can still deliver a lot of information if it cuts the fluff
>> and gets to the point.
>>> 
>>> If groups find the language objectionable (which I hope they will), they have
>> an easy solution: adopt an op agreement.  They can choose from the present
>> menu or cut/paste from another group.  We can give advanced notice to
>> existing groups so they can avoid the warning appearing on their homepage.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
>> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
> 
> 

--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 22:19:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 January 2013 22:19:59 GMT