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

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

From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:11:58 +0000
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
CC: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B236B24082A4094A85003E8FFB8DDC3C1A4F50F7@SOM-EXCH04.nuance.com>


> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> 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"?
[Milan] Agreed.


> >>> * 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.
[Milan] Too broad in its emotional response, or too broad in the scope of what is written?


> >> 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.

[Milan] I understand you are trying to balance the severity of the text against other corrective measures.  But I think you are forgetting about the balance between the severity of the text and the simplicity of the solution.  Just adopt a process agreement, and the problem goes away!  The way the current CG process is written, a chair doesn't even need radification from the group (or the other chair) to adopt the agreement.  Once in place a respectful chair will hopefully validate with the group, but if they are not inclined to take that step, things would have soon gone badly for the group anyway. 


> 
> 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 Wednesday, 16 January 2013 20:12:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 January 2013 20:12:27 GMT